David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Minister, in fairness, has given a comprehensive response and I would agree with a lot of what she said. The problem with this new subsection, as I see it, is that it could end up being a very blunt and crude instrument because, unfortunately, there are and will be situations where some level of discretion would need to be applied. That is what is being contested here, not primarily what the Minister is trying to do.

The section provides that qualified adult increases will not be paid for any period that the qualified adult is not resident in the State or is in custody. Essentially, by amending the definition of a qualified adult in the principal Act, section 7 subjects the qualified adult to the residency requirement. A number of questions then arise. Senator Mooney gave the example of a person who has returned home to their own country temporarily rather than for the long term, and asked why that person should not receive the payment. While our amendment was ruled out of order, some of the issues we raised are relevant, including situations where a person is held in custody on remand and is subsequently found not guilty. Is it fair in that case to disqualify the person? What if a person is legally detained for a mental assessment?

I assume the Minister is not going to accept the amendments and will, of course, not accept those that were ruled out of order. However, will she explain to us whether social welfare officers have some level of discretion if such situations arise? I would hope common sense would prevail and that the subsection would not end up being what I described it as potentially being, namely, a crude or blunt instrument which would not allow for common sense to prevail.