I am sorry the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is not in the House as he is engaged elsewhere. The Minister is not normally conspicuous by his attendance on the Adjournment debate, but that is no reflection on the Minister of State who is taking his place and who is a regular in the House for this debate. Many Ministers do not seem to think it worth their while to reply to Adjournment debate matters pertinent to their Departments.
I raise this case as I see it as a dangerous precedent. The case involves a young woman who has a baby and who was investigated by the Department, as it is entitled to do, in respect of her one-parent family allowance. Like other Members, I would not condone any attempt to obtain a payment under false pretences. When investigated, this woman admitted that a boyfriend occasionally stayed with her but that was as far as it went. However, subsequently all the services were alerted, including the rent support system she receives from the health board. That was terminated. She received a natural justice type letter indicating she was about to be more fully investigated. An allegation was made that there was proof of her cohabiting on the basis of information submitted to the local authority by way of a housing application. No such evidence could be construed as being in any way conclusive. Any couple with two addresses are entitled to make such a joint submission to the local authority in good order and completely above board, which was the case in this instance. She and her partner made an application to the local authority because she thought she was likely to be favourably considered under that heading.
One of the issues that emerged in the course of this investigation, submitted to me as proof of her alleged guilt, was that the alleged boyfriend was living at the house, as could be concluded from a court case, but the reverse is the case. Because of the court proceedings there was no possible way she could have been cohabiting.
I accept fully the Department's right to investigate each case and the Minister is entitled to approve that. While people may tend to cut corners in the current circumstances of the Celtic tiger, this happened under the Minister's Administration and during his watch. It represents a serious erosion of the civil rights and liberties of a citizen of this State. Any attempt to use evidence in the way it was attempted to use it in this case is unacceptable. Notwithstanding that the Minister may say he does not have responsibility for such matters, this happened under his Administration and during his watch. He has ultimate responsibility. If he wishes to proceed in that fashion, there will be other cases. I have seen evidence of them, whereby it will be deemed to be expedient to proceed in a fashion that does not have due regard to civil rights of the person concerned. In a country such as this that witnessed so much deprivation and poverty down the years, we should know better. The fact we have had a few years of economic boom does not give us the right to set aside basic liberties that have long since been established.
Because of the Department's intrusion in this fashion and it appearing to present conclusive evidence that does not exist, this person who is the mother of a child has substantial arrears of rent, which normally she would receive by way of rent assistance from the health board. It is coming up to Christmas, which is supposed to be the time of giving, cheer, charity, compassion and thinking about one's neighbours, but this neighbour will not be thought about in that way. If the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs wants to become the Scrooge of Christmas time, so be it. It is within the Minister's power to examine this case to determine whether due process has been honoured.
