Skip to main content
Normal View

Public Services Card Authentication

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 20 February 2018

Tuesday, 20 February 2018

Questions (47)

John Curran

Question:

47. Deputy John Curran asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection the number of persons who have been refused access to social protection payments for not having a public services card, PSC; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8407/18]

View answer

Oral answers (16 contributions)

Last Thursday week, the Joint Committee on Employment Affairs and Social Protection began to examine issues relating to the public services card, PSC. During the meeting, we were told about a specific case of a lady whose pension had been refused for non-production of a card. How common is that practice? How many people have been refused access to social protection entitlements for not producing this card and how were those issues resolved?

Nobody has been refused a payment for failure to produce a PSC. There is no legal basis for the card. People are asked to come in to identify themselves under the SAFE 2 authentication process to a standard that is acceptable to the Minister under the law. In the case to which the Deputy referred, the client had not gone through the SAFE process; it had nothing do with the PSC.

The Deputy will appreciate that my Department needs to verify the identity of our customers to a substantial level of assurance to ensure that they are who they claim to be, that they are not being impersonated, that they are not claiming services or payment in another identity, to minimise the need for them to prove their identity over and over again, and to provide them with access to an increasing range of online public services, thus making interaction with the State easier. The SAFE 2 identity verification standard agreed by the then Government in 2005 provides that substantial level of assurance and the requirement for it is provided for under section 247C of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, as amended, in respect of customers of my Department. Once customers complete a SAFE 2 identity verification process successfully, they may be issued with a PSC as a physical token of having gone through that process. Nobody will make them take the card. If they do not want it, they do not have to take it. The Department does not collect data on the number of individuals who currently, or who, at any point in time, have had a payment stopped by reason of failing to complete the SAFE 2 registration process because the data is fluid in nature.

For example, a considerable number of customers who have a payment or entitlement suspended or stopped subsequently decide to complete the SAFE 2 process and have their payment or entitlement reinstated. The decision to stop a payment is never made lightly or quickly. However, where a customer does not "satisfy the Minister in relation to identity" as per the legal requirement, a payment can be disqualified. In advance of any such disqualification, the Department makes every effort to engage with the customer to explain the legal basis for the SAFE 2 identity verification process and the consequences of potential disqualification. Where a payment has been disqualified and customers subsequently successfully completes the SAFE 2 registration process, their payment will be reinstated by the Department, assuming they meet all the relevant qualifying criteria for that payment. I hope that clarifies the matter for the Deputy.

It clarifies the Department's point of view but it does not provide clarity from our point of view because of the number of people who have the card. The pensioner to whom I referred was not refused. She had her payments withdrawn. While the Minister rightly said this was done to satisfy SAFE 2 rather than a requirement to produce the card, there is not much difference because the information provided under SAFE 2 leads to the creation of the card. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties said that there were a number of cases of people who had been refused payment. Subsequently, they may have come back into payment but the purpose of tabling the question was to establish how many have been refused by the Department for failing to meet the SAFE 2 requirement. The Minister said this is done "to satisfy the Minister as to their identity". Is she saying a driver's licence or a valid passport, which is internationally recognised, will not satisfy her and SAFE 2 is the only requirement that will?

It is not me personally.

She is the Minister.

On the basis that we spend billions of euros of taxpayers' money, the Minister and Government decided in 2005 that we needed to have a process to ensure the money went to the people entitled to it. That SAFE 2 process was ratified in 2005 by the then Government and became law in 2011.

I hate talking about particular people but the person the Deputy refers to was not refused and their payment was not ceased because they did not have a PSC. The payment was ceased because despite numerous attempts to ask that particular person to come in and identify themselves, they did not want to. The law requires that people prove themselves to a level of SAFE 2 identity authentication. That person, for whatever reason, did not feel comfortable doing so. I am happy to say that was resolved and the money was reinstated, and indeed backdated.

There is no conspiracy here. I know some people would like to see a conspiracy. What we need to ensure is that taxpayers' money, generated off the back of everybody's taxes, is sent and directly given to the people entitled to receive it.

The Minister must conclude. I call Deputy John Brady.

The only way we can do that is to make sure people are who they say they are.

I am trying to get in as many Members as possible. Deputy Brady may ask a final supplementary.

I am Deputy Curran.

You would not find me over on those benches.

I am not suggesting a conspiracy and I very much appreciate that it is crucial that a person’s identity be established to the satisfaction of everyone to ensure there is not fraudulent misappropriation of payments. I understand that fully.

The Minister spoke in detail about this case. We were trying to get a sense of how many other people were like this and I asked another question which the Minister did not answer very directly. The Minister spoke about the 2005 Act. That Act has been amended 35 times. It is quite a complex issue for someone to follow because of all the amendments. Is it possible within the Department to identify those people who have either been refused or had payments stopped pending SAFE 2, although I understand they produced other documents such as passports? The Minister did not say whether passports would satisfy the identity issue for the Minister or the Department.

The passport was probably produced under SAFE 1, which was a different level of identity authentication. We have moved to SAFE 2 and a product given under SAFE 1 is not suitable for something that is required to produce an identity reassurance under SAFE 2. I did not make the law. It just is the law and it makes perfect sense given the number of people we have uncovered who are using numerous identities. We have found out since the introduction of this process that there are people claiming for things under different names.

The simple premise behind what we are trying to do is to ensure that taxpayers' money goes to the people entitled to receive it, that they are not getting more than one payment, and that they are getting only the payment to which they are entitled. Nobody has had a payment taken away because they did not have a PSC. People are invited to identify themselves under the SAFE 2 process and if they refuse for a prolonged period, we have to assume either they have left the country or have passed away. There can be a variety of reasons. There have not been very many cases. I do not have the data today. We do not keep it because it is fluid. Normally, as soon as the payment is stopped, the person rings to ask what has happened, is invited in and the payment is reinstated and backdated.

The Minister needs to watch the clock.

We need to make sure taxpayers' money is going to the people who are entitled to get it.

Question No. 48 replied to with Written Answers.
Top
Share