Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I am hoping that I and my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Áine Brady, will be back, possibly on different sides of the House. The Minister of State and I have a good relationship with each other. I hope Deputy O'Connor will also be back because I want to be in a position to slag him.

I wish to comment on a particular notion which has developed about people with perceived disabilities. To say that someone has such a disability suggests that the person with the perception is making a judgment call on the former. That is a very dangerous route to take. There are those who are incapable of holding down employment because they lack either the physical or mental ability to do so. The Minister's proposal that such people should be accommodated may be a good thing. Under the relevant provision, people in this category cannot be forced to work but they will be in a position to engage in light work that will be within their capacity. People with perceived disabilities will certainly welcome this development.

The fact that persons such as these will only be engaging in light work should not mean that they should receive reduced incomes. These individuals will require particular care and attention, otherwise they will be obliged to remain on disability payments of one kind or another. As I have stated on previous occasions, there are some individuals who have the mental and physical capacity and strength to overcome even major disabilities and find their own way in the workplace. However, not everyone is blessed in this way and that must be borne in mind. In that context, therefore, we must ensure that any guidelines put in place will deal fairly with people across the board.

In recent times, a great deal of attention has been paid to the elimination of fraud. Deputy O'Rourke's comments on this matter are extremely valid. I do as much work in my constituency as any other Member of the House and I continually hear urban myths in respect of people who are obtaining social welfare and supplementary welfare payments on a daily basis. It is a case of dúirt bean liom go ndúirt bean léi. I am continually informed by people that individuals from other jurisdictions are using the social welfare system here to rake in money on a daily basis. Some 95% of these stories are rubbish.

I accept that there have always been isolated cases of fraud. It is stated that the level of fraud or attempted fraud can be up to 5%. There are some cases where, for one reason or another, a person may have inadvertently failed to supply information or where the Department did not take action in order to update is records. We must be aware that punishing people for perceived fraud is a dangerous route to take, particularly in the circumstances in which we currently find ourselves.

The Minister complained about the number of cases that were submitted for appeal in recent years. He indicated that the level of appeals increased by 45% or thereabouts in the past couple of years. That is the case because we are in the midst of a recession and there are huge numbers of people who are unemployed. There are those who, even though they have disabilities or are ill, have sought out employment. These individuals sought special concessions, permission and exemption from the relevant schemes to seek employment. However, it is not always the case that they can do so in the current, extremely competitive labour market. There is a need to monitor the position of such people.

As stated on many previous occasions, the habitual residency clause is an appalling and, in my opinion, unconstitutional method of refusing a payment to someone who would ordinarily be entitled to it. Irish citizens, regardless of whether they were born here, continue to come to this country to care for their relatives. The fact that they do so saves the State a considerable amount of money in the context of its not being obliged to provide institutional care. However, such individuals are informed that their place of habitual residency is not in Ireland and that, as such, they are not entitled to payment. Some of these people were here or were born before those in the Department who make the relevant decisions. Many of them lived through hard times and made a contribution to the economy of this country. However, the Minister and his Department have the cheek to inform them that they do not qualify for payment.

These people have made their contribution. They may not live here now, they may have lived in another jurisdiction for the past five or ten years or they may have left during a previous recession. There is no doubt that they have paid the price and have returned to care for their relatives. There are numerous cases of this kind. It does not matter from where these people come. If a person has a major disability, is in need of care and is legitimately living in this country and has a right to be here and if one of his or her relatives offers to care for him or her, it is far more cost beneficial to the State to facilitate this arrangement rather than to place that individual in an institution. That is a fact. Anyone who wants to challenge my argument in this regard may do so but there is no possibility that I will be proven wrong.

At a recent meeting of the relevant committee, the Minister requested suggestions on this matter. I suggest that those who return here from abroad to care for their relatives should be given the relevant payment. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to devise a way for people in such circumstances to qualify for payment. I return to my original point that if a lack of available resources becomes the determining factor in assessing whether people qualify for payment, then the cause is lost.

There is one final matter to which I wish to refer before the Ceann Comhairle calls time on my contribution.

See this speech in context