Mary O'Rourke (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)

The person concerned must be very fertile if she did, because I do not know how she could have twins twice within a month. However, these are the kind of urban myths which, once promulgated, tend to fly everywhere. Moreover, the community welfare officers and social welfare staff are always blamed. Much of this is tosh, hearsay and incorrect but it gives people a good feeling to think they are pointing out, as they perceive it, shortcomings in the system. My response to people is that they should try to live on what one gets from a non-contributory old-age pension.

It is a sad feature of the difficult times in which people are living that they want to cast stones at others. When I spoke publicly about the non-contributory old age pension, which is basic income, and said people should be left with it, I was amazed at the number of e-mails I received from people who said, "Why should you lift that benefit out and talk about it?". I wrote back to each one and said, "You try living on that some time", to parody a very well-known person. I will not give his name here; that would not be right. It is a sad fact that people want, in an atavistic way, to probe and shout at people who they think are getting more than they are. These stories excite people, who then want to cut, cut, cut. That is wrong.

I am interested in what the Minister said about section 8. Current legislation requires a person registering for a PPS number to submit a photograph and signature. However, the Minister said, "it is not practical to collect these items in all cases, for example where the customer is non-resident or deceased and in probate cases. Section 8 clarifies the position by only requiring that these items be submitted when required". There was a time when I thought the public service card represented big brother looming in on us and requiring too much information. Carrying one's card and zapping it in to gain access to many services now has a very modern connotation and would be a very good thing, in itself. It would augur well.

I am interested in this legislation. I know this might be a catch-all Bill because it is a miscellaneous provisions Bill. Miscellaneous measures usually gather up things that have fallen through the cracks since the last miscellaneous or genuine Bill. I note that the Minister has said he will bring forward a number of amendments. That is very refreshing. He is not even waiting for us to put forward amendments. He will bring them forward himself. They will deal with the provisions of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. They will follow up civil partnership legislation. Instead of sitting back and saying, "Weren't we great to bring in that Bill?", there are now outfalls of that legislation which must be finalised, and the Minister is going to do that.

I am interested in the introduction of a partial capacity scheme, which will begin to address a critical limitation of the current social welfare code which categorises people with long-term illnesses or disabilities as either fit for work or unfit for work. The focus within the welfare system on incapacity rather than capacity carries negative consequences for people with disabilities and their families, who may be trapped in welfare dependency. The Minister will also introduce an amendment to provide for the transfer of community welfare officers from the HSE to the Department of Social Protection. That is very good. The Department will also take responsibility for the supplementary welfare allowance, which is currently administered by the HSE.

When Deputies meet people who are unable to get supplementary welfare benefit and put down a parliamentary question on their behalf, the Minister is reliant on the information coming to him from the HSE. We then go round and round the mulberry bush. Officials of the HSE, with responsibility for hospitals, waiting lists and all the rest of it crowding in on them, are very slow to get at supplementary welfare benefit, and particularly slow to get at the real cause of what is wrong.

I did not hear the Minister refer to the habitual residency clause, HRC, but I would like to speak about it myself. When people come back from England they do not look at a map and decide to live in Athlone or Mullingar, for example. Why would they? A couple often decide to settle where one of them has roots. I had such a case recently. A husband and wife came back from the United Kingdom where the husband had worked for many years - he was not work shy - and they settled in a rural town in County Westmeath. The lady of the couple was a native of the town and all her sisters and brothers lived there. They had grown-up children in the United Kingdom and one son of 17, who had started an apprenticeship course in the UK and quickly enrolled and was taken on in FÁS. So far, so good. They then wished to apply for various benefits, but they were told they did not qualify because they did not meet the requirements of the HRC.

I think that is wrong. It is different when people who have no links with an area or were never heard of before suddenly appear there. This couple had strong familial links with the rural town in which they wished to settle. I thought we had protocol arrangements between the Department of Social Protection and the equivalent agency in the United Kingdom, through the office in Newcastle-on-Tyne. The husband in this case had paid national insurance contributions for 41 years. He was not a work shy individual trying to run to Ireland to pick up benefits. Neither was his wife; she was native to the town. As they were not habitual residents they did not qualify for benefit, or so said the supplementary welfare officer on behalf of the HSE.

Supplementary welfare officers are the most dogged people. I am sure they will read what I am saying in the Official Report, and I hope they do. There are hierarchies of supplementary welfare officers. There is the ordinary officer one meets in one's local office. There then appears to be an officer who is a step above that. Then there is a superintendent, who is like God. He - and it is mostly he - will decide whether people are eligible for whatever benefit they are applying for.

I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Áine Brady, and her officials, who are in the Chamber, to take a note and have a keen look at the habitual residency clause, which is militating against genuine applicants for social welfare benefit.

While I am on my feet I will make another observation based on clinic work. I often think what Deputies hear in their clinics can permeate what they say on legislation. It is a wonderful way of combining two aspects of a Deputy's work.

I know you have an impatient face on you, a Cheann Comhairle, but I simply have to tell this story.

See this speech in context