Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Ní bheidh mé i bhfad. I wish to raise two issues. I echo the points made by Deputy Martin Kenny on JobPath. My experience is also that the experience of constituents of mine was not positive. People feel shunted into it and uncertain and uncomfortable with it. Another defect is that public representatives have little ability to engage with those providing the JobPath service on behalf of constituents in comparison with the engagement we would have with the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection or branches of it. My experience of JobPath is not positive in that regard.

The primary issue I wish to raise is that of the public services card. One of the main reasons a lot of attention was drawn to this was the case of an elderly woman being deprived of her pension for a lengthy period of time due to her not having a public services card. The policy of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection was that such a card was required. Indeed, the policy of many other Departments is that the public services card will be required for additional services. At the time, I commented that in my view, and I believe it is the view of many, the legal basis to the requirement is debatable.

My recollection is that the Department was relying on section 247C of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, as inserted by the Social Welfare and Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013. This section provides that the Minister may require any person receiving a benefit to satisfy the Minister as to his or her identity and that failure to do so could lead to disqualification. It is a reasonable provision in the Act that a person would be required to prove who he or she is so that the right person receives a benefit and someone who is not entitled to a benefit does not claim it fraudulently. However, my reading of the provision is that the Minister could be satisfied as to a person's identity by any number of means other than production of a public services card. The woman in question, although this does not refer to one particular individual, had regularly engaged with services by providing copies of bills, her passport, driving licence and other forms of documentation that should easily have satisfied the Department as to her identity. I do not see how the section requires the use of a public services card. It appears to me that there is no basis in law for such a requirement and, consequently, she should not have been deprived of her pension for such a lengthy period of time.

This is relevant in that there are additional provisions on the public services card in this Bill. I refer in particular to section 5. However, it does not appear to me that section 5 or any other section of the Bill - I am open to correction - makes the compunction any clearer. It would be welcome if the Minister could clarify the situation. I do not think the public services card should be mandatory. The legal basis relied on, however, is shaky and I am not convinced that it is now any stronger. The Minister is shaking her head but I cannot see how the previous section prevented a person from satisfying the Department as to his or her identity by means other than by production of a public services card.

See this speech in context