Gerard Craughwell (Independent)

To get back to where I was, there are anomalies in the system. Much of what I wanted to say has already been delivered by the Minister in his own speech, so I will not go into the historical background of John's case. However, there are anomalies in the system. We are very privileged in this country to have the civil servants we have working in Departments. I firmly believe there is no civil servant who goes out of his or her way to block people or payments. Legislation is civil servants' rule book and they have to live by it. However, the State Claims Agency, which manages things that go wrong, takes off the gloves and fights bare-knuckled with people who are in the most horrendous state of their lives. We have got to find a way to inform a Minister immediately when cases like the one in question arise. When the Minister is informed, the first question should be on how we can resolve the matter to the benefit of the citizen of the State rather than on how to build a wall so high that the average citizen will never be able to climb it.

I get lots of stick, as the Minister does, and people say many things about useless Governments. Today, it is Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and tomorrow it will be other parties in government – it does not matter – but, ultimately, nobody comes in here to deliberately block citizens of the country. Nobody works in any Civil Service office in this country deliberately setting out to block people. However, we operate under a rule book and the rule in the State Claims Agency is to defend to the death. That is what it did against the family in question. It held them to the very last. At the very end, when the Supreme Court made its judgment, it provided political cover for the Minister, even if the Minister did not know about it. Under the Ministers and Secretaries Act, if a civil servant writes something in a Minister's name, it is the Minister who is deemed to have written it. It does not matter whether he knows about it. That is the nature of the world. I was once told by a senior official that he used his name as Gaeilge for official correspondence. I asked him why and he said he never knew when he would have to write to a next-door neighbour. The bottom line is that we can hide behind the rule book but we really need to change.

Consider the issue I raised regarding the widow's pension: an individual hits 66 years of age and suddenly cannot have the widow's pension, which the deceased person paid for. It is not a gift from the State; it is something that has been bought and paid for. That is the whole purpose behind the social welfare system.

There are many anomalies within the social welfare system that I could discuss but I will not do so. However, let me refer to the one thing I do know. In any case, as when we took the county councillors' class K case some years ago, one has to go the whole way to the courts. When we arrived at the court for the class K case, we settled it and class S came in for county councils.

I am aware that the Cabinet is busy. I ask that we try to have a subcommittee of the Cabinet examine how we deal with citizens of the State who find themselves in conflict. I have no difficulty with the State throwing everything it possibly can at somebody who takes a case against it maliciously, but we are talking about people in crisis. Down through the years, there have been cases of people on their death beds with cancer who had Government officials dealing with them to solve claims. We should never get to that state.

I have not bothered reading my speech here because I actually support what the Minister is doing. What he has done is really noble. Sure, when we come to Committee Stage, there will probably be amendments and we may have an argument or two about them, but the Minister has acted quickly. I commend him for that and I commend his officials for putting together legislation that will mean an unfortunate person whose partner has passed away will not be destitute. However, I ask the Minister to examine the rule stipulating a period of two years. Where a couple had broken up but there is empirical or verifiable evidence that they were trying to rekindle the relationship or get back together, we should be looking after the deceased person's family as best we can. Rather than ask somebody to go to the Supreme Court on it, we should consider on Committee Stage how we might achieve this.

Once again, I thank the Minister for his time. I thank his officials for their work because they are the people who put this together.