Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

There are a number of issues dealt with in the Bill that could easily merit a long contribution, not least the fact that the Bill falls very far short of the framework that was launched earlier in the year which promised significant pension reform. My colleague, Deputy Róisín Shortall, spoke to the Bill and raised many of the issues surrounding the management of pensions and the plight of workers such as those in Aer Lingus, the Dublin Airport Authority, Marks & Spencer’s, Independent News and Media and so on. I will not go over the same territory again.

Given what transpired during the summer break regarding the outrageous handling of the public services card, that is an area on which I particularly want to focus. Section 5 of the Bill makes provision for the Minister to issue a public services card where she sees fit. Departments and systems have to talk to each other, but safeguards are incredibly important and people are very conscious of the need to safeguard their personal data. The sledgehammer style introduction of the public services card has caused not only confusion, justified anger and fear but it has also severely impacted on some people's welfare payments because they expressed understandable and legitimate concerns about the new system. I spoke to one applicant who told me that all she was looking for was clarification as to whether it was compulsory to obtain one of these cards. I know that she has not been paid her pension, something into which she had paid and something she regarded as a benefit she would receive when she sought it. Instead of taking on board legitimate concerns of citizens about how their personal data would be used or transferred among Departments, or to handlers in other jurisdictions, they were ignored and people found themselves being held financially hostage as their payments were discontinued if they refused to blindly accept the imposition of the public service card. I do not know if a benefit for which somebody has paid can be legitimately withheld. If it happened to a politician or in the case of a ministerial pension, the High Court would be invoked as a possible sanction, but it seems that when it is a small individual who is trying to establish his or her rights, there is a difference in treatment.

The Minister has repeatedly denied that the public services card is, in fact, an ID card, yet the proposed subsection (1)(d) of section 5 clearly and succinctly states a person may use his or her public services card for the purposes of proving his or her identity to any other person or specified body. If we are to have an ID card, let us have a discussion about it.

Let us have the discussion about the safeguards around identity cards but let us not do it by stealth. To watch the Minister ignoring concerns such an ID card, in an age when personal data is a commodity was breathtaking. Serious concerns exist regarding the digital safety of such information. I dealt with a woman who had her old age pension payment stopped after she questioned whether it was mandatory to accept the public services card, PSC. I asked some parliamentary questions and received what can only be described as an aggressive defence of this woman's treatment and the treatment of others like her. The Minister said on radio that most people were accepting of this. Why would they not be accepting of it if by refusing to get one of these cards they would not receive their pension? Further, the reply doubles down on the fact that the PSC is indeed a national identity card and stresses the ‘consequences’ for those who refuse to get on board with the system. People need reassurance at the very least.

To add serious insult to injury, the reply also confirms that people who had the audacity not to blindly swallow the Government's line, and who dared to pose questions and express concerns, not only had their payments stopped but will not have those amounts backdated when their payment resumes. I find that astonishing because it is a benefit if a person has paid into it and meets the qualifying criteria. I do not understand how a person's pension can be discontinued without addressing that. Essentially, those persons find themselves penalised substantially for daring to raise legitimate concerns.

Another area where there are significant legitimate concerns is JobPath. A significant section of this Bill concerns itself with the area of social welfare fraud and identifying those working while claiming payments. I am certainly not justifying anybody doing that but it appears very little consideration is given to finding ways to accommodate those people who are actively engaging with the system but want to activate themselves in the jobs market.

I am dealing with a case where a father of two was referred to JobPath in 2016. This referral happened despite the fact that he had declared himself a casual worker, in that he could pick up a few hours here and there and have his social protection payment reduced accordingly. Upon being sent to register for JobPath he was told, on the registration day, that he was not a suitable candidate yet they registered him anyway. Had he refused to be registered his social protection payment would more than likely have stopped although he did not have the casual work. The obligations placed on him by the Department required him to attend at times notified to him, even if those times clashed with working hours he had been offered. He consistently raised this issue with the team and told them he was at risk of losing the bit of work he had if they refused to help manage the times accordingly. He was rebuffed and ignored.

Even more worrying, he was asked to sign documents asking him to verify attendance at sessions which he had not attended. When he expressed concern at signing something he knew not to be true he was told not to worry about it and that he had to sign in order to get paid. He had specifically requested a truck training programme and was refused and instead sent on a Private Security Authority, PSA, licence course which cost the same amount of money but had poorer work prospects for him. He was coerced into the training with the promise of a job at the end of but no such job ever materialised. He was prohibited from accepting any other external offers of employment during the training time and threatened with sanctions if he accepted work outside the JobPath scheme.

Eventually, he and his wife decided that it would be more prudent for him to take the risk of accepting a job and that is what he did. He then found himself pestered by Seetec, the JobPath organising company, to get his new employer to fraudulently fill out forms claiming JobPath had got him the job. The employer was contacted on several occasions. JobPath did not get him the job but he and his new employer were repeatedly harassed to the point that the employer eventually signed the forms to get it off his back. The man in question felt that he had to speak out and highlight what is going on in this scheme. This is not a client centred labour market activation programme. This is a programme for profit. The same company is having significant difficulties with the legal system in Scotland.

I ask the Minister of State to look into issues such as the public services card. Much more thought has to be given to some of the people who have fallen foul of this. It is not acceptable that people who have paid all their lives cannot get their pensions because they do not want to engage with the public services card but can provide alternative identification through a passport or a driving licence. They do not feel confident enough about the card and have not received enough answers on it.

The JobPath scheme merits a serious review from a citizen's perspective rather than looking to penalise and punish. There are other things within the Department that are costing money and which are not what they were intended to be. JobPath deserves that kind of scrutiny.

See this speech in context