I will read a note on privilege and housekeeping matters before we begin. Witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that would be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with such a direction that I might make.

Members attending remotely are reminded of the constitutional requirement that to participate in public meetings they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex. This is due to the constitutional requirement that to participate in public meetings members must be physically present within the confines or place where the Parliament has chosen to sit. In this regard, I will ask any members who are participating via Microsoft Teams to confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House complex if they wish to contribute to our meeting. I remind all those in attendance to make sure their mobile phones are switched off or on silent mode.

The purpose of this meeting is to commence pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the social welfare and other matters Bill 2026. The general scheme provides for miscellaneous amendments to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 and the Civil Registration Act 2004. It also makes amendments to the Charities Act 2009.

We are joined by officials from three Departments who work in the areas of social protection and civil registration. I welcome from the Department of Social Protection Ms Roshin Sen, principal officer; Mr. Niall Egan, assistant secretary; Ms Deirdre Shanley, assistant secretary; Ms Anne Marie Cassidy, principal officer; Mr. David Dillon, ard-chláraitheoir; Ms Helen McDonald, principal officer; Ms Áine Maguire, principal officer; and Ms Caroline Murphy, assistant principal officer. From the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht I welcome Ms Ciara Bates, principal officer; and Ms Sharon McNamara, higher executive officer. From the Department of Children, Disability and Equality I welcome Mr. Seosamh Mac Carthaigh, principal officer.

I thank all the witnesses for their attendance today. I now invite Mr. Egan to make his opening remarks.

I thank the committee for the invitation to discuss the general scheme of the social welfare and other matters Bill 2026. I am delighted to be here this morning.

We have a large delegation because this is essentially an omnibus Bill which impacts on three separate items of legislation and the work of three Departments. I hope we will be able to answer the questions of the committee. I will not repeat the names of all the officials present as the Cathaoirleach has done so, and I thank him for that. I am grateful that my colleagues from the Departments of Social Protection, Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht, and Children, Disability and Equality are here. This is a valuable and important opportunity to progress legislative priorities of the Departments outside the context of the Department of Social Protection's annual budget Bill and for this committee to give consideration to the general scheme of the Bill prior to its publication. The general scheme provides for miscellaneous amendments to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 and the Civil Registration Act 2004. It also makes amendments to the Charities Act 2009 to better facilitate the work of the Charity Appeals Tribunal.

The amendments to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 address a range of issues that will allow for more effective operation of the Department's schemes and services. This includes a number of amendments to the legislation that underpins the public services card, PSC. These proposals would enable the cardholder, at their own discretion, to present the PSC as a form of identity to a body that is not a specified body under the Act. The amendments would also allow the date of birth of a cardholder to be inscribed on the public services card where the person requests it, in order to use the card as a means of verifying age. These amendments would be of particular benefit to people who may not have a driver's licence or a passport, both of which have a cost to obtain. We are seeking to put the code of practice for determining employment status developed by the Department, the Revenue Commissioners and the Workplace Relations Commission on a statutory footing for social welfare deciding officers and appeals officers.

There are a number of technical amendments to improve the workings of the social welfare appeals office, including the introduction of a time limit of two years for requesting a review of a decision by a deciding officer, an appeals officer or the chief appeals officer. There are also some other technical amendments to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 that update outdated references in the Act and repeal the pre-retirement allowance scheme which closed to new entrants in 2007.

The general scheme contains a range of amendments to the Civil Registration Act 2004 to improve the functioning of the General Register Office. These include introducing provisions such as to enable State agencies such as Tusla to register or re-register the birth of a child with the father's details on foot of a court order; to exempt the mother of a child from providing details of the father of the child in cases where the father is deceased; to enable a medical practitioner to authorise a person to notify the particulars of a death; and to capture the country of birth and country of citizenship in the required particulars for registering a death. There are also amendments to the Civil Registration Act 2004, on behalf of the Department of Children, Disability and Equality, to address the concerns of persons affected by incorrect or illegal birth registration.

On request from the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht, the general scheme also contains some amendments to the Charities Act 2009. The amendments in question are wholly technical and operational in nature but are essential in supporting the ongoing efficient operation of the tribunal and ensuring the tribunal can deliver on its statutory requirements. In particular, they provide for a quorum of the Charity Appeals Tribunal, the nomination of a deputy chairperson and to provide that witnesses before the tribunal will have immunity from disclosing information or providing certain evidence.

I thank the committee again for the opportunity to speak on the general scheme. I look forward to the discussion. My colleagues and I will be happy to assist members with any questions they may have.

I thank Mr. Egan for his briefing on behalf of the three Departments.

It is a great idea to put more practical identification details on the public services card. The holder's personal public service number, PPSN, is on the PSC already. Will the holder's address also be on it? That would be really helpful for people.

The address does not appear on the PSC. There are no plans to do that. An address is something that will change when individuals move locations.

It is useful to have the holder's address on the driver's licence. Are there any discussions about including the address? We all know the address on the driver's licence can change when a person moves house but just having it on the licence is helpful.

The items that can be on the public services card are specified in legislation. That determines and dictates the details that are on PSC.

We are changing the provisions today to include the date of birth, so why has the address not been included?

It is not something the Department has noticed a demand for from the public or from representatives, whereas the ability to use the PSC for identity purposes and for people to have their PPSN somewhere that is convenient for them is definitely something they want. We can take the Deputy's remarks away.

As my colleague Ms Cassidy has said, the demand has really been about being able to produce the public services card on a voluntary basis for other institutions and to have the date of birth on it. This is the first time I have heard a request for the address. I am not disputing the validity of it.

As a solicitor, I can say that anti-money laundering requirements are becoming more onerous for banks and professional bodies. It is really helpful to have as much detail as possible on a public services card. It is a no-brainer. I am delighted the date of birth will be added to it but the more information that is available on cards that are freely available to people, the better.

As my colleague has said, we will definitely consider this. This is the first time we are putting forward a change that would create an ability to put additional data on the PSC, namely, the date of birth. Not everybody will want that.

It will be on an opt-in basis. I do not see why we should not be able to opt in to having our address on it as well.

We will definitely consider it. This is essentially what we are doing in this Bill in the context of changing the date of birth. We will keep the matter under consideration.

I thank the witnesses.

I thank the witnesses for being here. I am sure they are not unaware that the public services card has been the subject of a certain amount of controversy. I note Mr. Egan said there was a demand for this. He might explain where that demand is coming from. Will he reply specifically to a statement from T.J. McIntyre of the Digital Rights Alliance contained in a press release issued by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. As I am sure the witnesses are aware, the ICCL is very concerned about this? It states that "the DPC has made a finding that the biometric data processing underpinning the PSC is unlawful". Is there anything in this legislation that will address that finding of the Data Protection Commissioner or is this Bill only concerning itself with the addition of the date of birth?

The provisions in the Bill relate to four measures related to the public services card. None of those address the Deputy's point in terms of the investigation the DPC raised about biometric processing of facial images as part of the safe registration process. From the Department's perspective, while we are fully aware of what the DPC found, namely, that it believed the legislation is not clear, precise or transparent enough to meet the requirements of the GDPR, we have engaged extensively and, based on the advice of the Attorney General's office, we are appealing this decision in the manner provided under statute. As I said, nothing in this Bill addresses that particular issue. However, the DPC decision is actively under appeal.

Surely the Department would be concerned at a finding of the DPC that the legislation is, as Mr. Egan just stated, "not clear, precise or transparent". This is a form of digital ID. It is something that people, both within the confines of this building and outside of it, are deeply concerned about. I would have thought this legislation would have been a good opportunity.

We all had a good laugh at - God help her - the former Minister who could not tell the difference between mandatory and compulsory or whatever it was at the time. There are very serious issues at play here, as well as a serious finding from the DPC. I respect that it is under appeal but when an authority or body like the Data Protection Commission or the Irish Council for Civil Liberties express concerns, I would have thought that it was in the interests of the Department, if it wants this, but the officials have not addressed my questions on where the demand is coming from. I would have thought this would be an ideal opportunity - a massive big omnibus Bill - and a chance to address those concerns.

I apologise for not addressing the point about demand.

That is okay.

It has come up repeatedly from the people who use the public services card. The main issue that we found over many years now is the fact that where people have to prove their identity to other bodies that are not prescribed bodies in the legislation under the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, they usually have to get a driver's licence or passport and, as I said in the opening statement, it costs money to obtain those documents. For many people who do not require a driving licence or might not have access to a passport, the cost is a difficult issue. It is from that cohort that we have had demand, whether for the public services card or not, because people have gone through a safe registration process that verifies their identity and they wonder why they cannot use their own discretion to present that card on the voluntary basis to a third party to verify their identity. That is essentially where the demand has come from.

How are they conveying this to the Department? Did the Department do a survey or is it just a kind of a feeling? Where is it coming from?

This is constant feedback we have got from customers at the counters. My colleague can confirm that.

That is good. That is very helpful to know. How is that recorded in a structured way? Does the person at the counter take a note and feed it in? I am just curious to know how that is assessed.

Over the years there have been representations on why this cannot be made available. That is one aspect. In client and data services we have the third busiest contact centre in the Department. We get a lot of calls from people checking. They want to know why it cannot be accepted if they are dealing with a credit union or something like that. Credit unions themselves have long called for something like this for their clients as most of them have that ID. It does not cost them anything to get. It is widely available and they would have thought that was a bit more beneficial to do. We know that not everybody has a passport or driver's licence. A public services card is free to get on day one if someone wishes to have one, and it is free to renew. If you lose it, we will replace it. There is a process there.

I am aware of that. There have been representations from TDs, a lot of calls in - an unquantifiable number - and calls from the credit unions.

Yes.

That is what is driving the demand for this.

These measures were actually part of a Bill that was introduced in 2017 but it was not completed. I think it got to Second Stage or Committee Stage and then there was no government to finish it out. The measures were a response at the time and that demand is still there. That is why the Department wishes to bring these amendments forward at this point.

Okay. For the benefit of the people here, I do intend to bring forward amendments when we get to that Stage. I say this with the maximum amount of respect. I do not for a moment accept that there is a demand or a pressing need for the extension of this at all. I would caution that extending a card that is so mired in controversy is a mistake. I would prefer if the charge of it not being clear, precise of transparent or many of the other issues that have been raised by the ICCL on digital rights, etc., would be addressed before the Department would try to expand or add to it. That is my own personal opinion. I can leave it at that. I very much look forward to the next session we have but it is my intention to bring forward amendments to the Bill.

As the Bill goes through, we will listen to the comments the Deputy makes and we will give due consideration to any Committee Stage amendments she brings.

I will make just a couple of points. The DPC found in its second investigation that the processing is not precise, clear and transparent. But I reiterate that based on the advice of the Attorney General, we disagree with that view. This will now be adjudicated by the courts as part of the statutory appeals process.

In response to an earlier comment the Deputy made, in the first investigation the DPC found that the SAFE registration process and the public services card could only be used by the Department of Social Protection for its services. The Department did appeal that decision back in 2019. The net effect of that was that there was a settlement reached between both parties and the DPC acknowledged that the Department can continue to conduct SAFE registration and issue public services cards to people wishing to avail of services from other public bodies, which is critical. We have updated and expanded our privacy statement and changed our data retention policy. The net effect of this is that people could continue to use the public services card to access public services from other prescribed bodies. If that had not happened, essentially every other public body would have had to separately and independently verify identity. The State has invested huge resources into a process where the vast majority of people have their identity verified and it is secure, so we would differ and disagree with the current second investigation findings, but it is important to note the settlement that was reached in relation to the first investigation.

Could I just clarify that? What does Mr. Egan mean when he refers to it being "safe"?

It is the registration process that we go through to verify a person's identity.

Is it an acronym?

SAFE stands for standard authentication framework environment.

We would not want anyone to get the impression that it was designated as safe. That is just the name that has been given to it.

I am sorry. That is a fair point.

That is a good name for it. I have finished my questions.

Could the witnesses confirm how many people have a public services card at the moment?

Some 4.9 million people have been SAFE registered. There are currently about 3.25 million active cards in circulation.

Is the only change the inclusion of a date of birth on the card?

The proposal is that the individual who has had their identity verified can opt to have their date of birth inscribed on the card. Equally, they can opt to have that removed. For example, younger people might want it on their card for a period but they might not want it later so both of those options are there. There is actually a commencement date to that part because we have to make certain system changes to introduce that. It is because we want to be very clear that the person is consenting to that, and that it is his or her expressed option. He or she is doing it by consent. There is no mandatory element to it.

Would the addition of the date of birth occur on the renewal of the PSC or would the Department write out to everyone and be given the option?

At the moment we are bringing the amendment forward. I suppose we will have a communication plan around that. We will find the best way to get that messaging out. The website will be updated and all of that once the legislation follows its path, however that works. It is completely mandatory, as is the other part of the PSC, which is that you can use it as your identity. That is entirely at the discretion of the cardholder.

Will it be an option?

Yes. The existing social welfare legislation has certain protections in it so that people cannot demand a public services card from any individual. That includes all sorts of entities and bodies. They cannot ask the person but what we are doing with one of the measures here is removing an offence where the person elects to offer that card as their identity. Currently, that is an offence under existing social welfare legislation.

The two measures are in tandem. The first is we would remove the offence where the person volunteers the card. The second permits the person to volunteer the card as a form of identity in the way that they would volunteer their passport or driver's licence.

I should have said earlier that we have consulted with the Data Protection Commission on these specific measures. I want to assure the committee to that effect. Essentially, they are supportive, as the individual, as my colleague Ms Cassidy said, is in control of to whom they present, it is on a voluntary basis and the option for date of birth can be revoked as well, which is our full intention. If somebody puts their date of a birth on a card, they get a new card and then decide they want it removed, we will issue them with a new card once we operationalise this.

I thank Mr. Egan for that. In terms of the Civil Registration Act 2004, there are four points in Mr. Egan's statement. Could he go into more detail in terms of bullet point number three, "to enable a medical practitioner to authorise a person to notify the particulars of a death"?

I will ask my colleague, the Ard-Chláraitheoir, David Dillon, to respond.

Which particular head is it?

It is the third point there, "to enable a medical practitioner to authorise a person to notify the particulars of a death".

The latest legislation we passed was the Civil Registration (Electronic Registration) Act 2024. That provides for a death notification system to be established whereby the GRO will be notified of the fact of a death and we will then write to the estate of that person advising them of their duty to register a death within a certain time, etc.

As part of that death notification process, the current legislation states that the medical person who identifies the cause of death must notify person. What we are doing is to facilitate the HSE in organising itself. If they want to set up a system whereby deaths are reported by the medical person to a central hub or to a clerical person in a certain area, it facilitates that and then that person passes it on to the GRO.

So it could be done by the primary care department rather than-----

Rather than relying on the individuals. The duty to notify is within five working days. If, for example, it is a junior doctor, they might be working the weekend and might not be back in or whatever. It is to facilitate that it can be handed off to a nominated person to then send it on to us. That is what that is providing for.

I thank Mr. Dillon. My final question is on the amendments to the Charities Act 2009. Most of them are technical in nature, is it, but it is something to do with a tribunal? Can Mr. Egan to into more detail about that?

I might ask one of my colleagues from the Department of rural and community development, Ms Ciara Bates, to answer that.

Effectively, these amendments are to assist the smooth operation of the tribunal. At the moment, all five members of the Charity Appeals Tribunal have to be there for a hearing and that is quite logistical, etc. The 2009 Act also states that the chairperson has to be there for a hearing as well. As the work of the tribunal has stepped up and there are more hearings in place at the moment, logistically, it is quite difficult. What we are proposing through these amendments is that we will allow for a quorum for the tribunal so not all members have to be there.

What is the quorum?

We are proposing that quorum would be three going forward. At the moment, all five members have to be there.

Additional duties are being assigned to the tribunal or different appeals now that can be heard with the 2004 (amendment) Act as well. We are expecting a much busier tribunal and for the logistics of operations of it, we are proposing the quorum and the deputy chair.

The deputy chair can subsidise for the chairperson.

At the moment, under the legislation the chairperson has to be there at every hearing.

That concludes my contribution.

I note the general scheme states: "The duty to complete this notification lies with either the chief officer of a hospital or institution or if the death occurred." If the doctor is not sure of the cause of death, does that automatically require a post mortem?

Yes. There is a schedule of cases anyway under the Coroners Act whereby a death under that schedule automatically has to be referred to the coroner in the first instance and those cases will be excluded from this provision because the coroner is responsible for reporting the cause of death in those circumstances.

On another matter, we all got our PPS numbers or, before that, the old insurance number. If someone who is going aboard wanted a change, maybe to the name that they are using, do they need to prove that for four years or once you get your PPS number and your name, is it written in stone then? Can the Christian name be changed, not the surname?

Christian name, yes. We have procedures around that. If somebody wishes to change their name, that can be done by deed poll or by evidence of use for two years. If they come in to one of the Department's local offices, explain their situation and bring that evidence with them, that can be done. Their record will be updated by the Department and if they have a public service card, a new card can be issued in their new name.

That mirrors very much what happens with a passport and there is a slight change in the name.

I am sure the officials are familiar with the letters coming out from the register of electors in the local authorities. Everyone in the country is getting a letter and unless they return that letter with their PPS number, they are off the register. I have never seen it in all my life. They have to give the PPS number as well. Is that obligatory, or would Ms Cassidy know or have any idea? Maybe it is not a question for these officials. It might be for the local authority.

We would have to check with our colleagues in the Department of housing and local government on that. I am not directly familiar with the provisions in relation to it. We would have to come back to the committee on it.

My understanding is it is optional to provide the PPS number. They are looking at it from the point of view of double-registering, different locations, etc. They are trying to link it back to PPS numbers but I think it is optional.

If people do not return the form, they are off the register. I am thinking of the elderly people who cannot. It is not for the Department. It is a matter for the Department of housing and we will raise with that Department at some stage. I thank the officials for their answers.

I thank Deputy Gallagher. Finally, in terms of the technical amendments to the social welfare appeals office, would whoever is responsible for that go into more detail on it?

There is a number of technical amendments in relation to operation of the appeals office. I will ask my colleague Ms Helen McDonald from the social welfare appeals office, to address that point.

I will start with the first amendment in relation to the time limit for seeking a statutory review under the Act. At present, a person may seek a review at any time. What the amendment does is seek to limit that to a two-year time period with the option for an extra year if there is good cause. Basically, at the moment, it is very open-ended and there is no finality to the process. What the amendment will do is make the end of two years the limit for looking for a review on a particular decision.

At the moment, it is open-ended and anyone can ask for a review at any time.

Absolutely, yes. There are advantages and disadvantages to that. A disadvantage would be, from an administrative point of view, that the process is open-ended and we have to keep records and data practically forever.

Which of the schemes the Department operates is the most popular in terms of being asked for a review?

They all are, really. Our bigger schemes, probably, from the appeals office side, are disability allowance, domiciliary care allowance, DCA, carer's allowance and jobseeker's allowance.

Is the process that the people apply again? If a review was that they get, for example, a half-carer's allowance, on that basis, if they apply for a review on that and it is outside of the two-year process or the three-year process now, do they have to apply in the main again for carer's allowance.

I will explain the process. If somebody makes an application, we look at things at the date of claim and everything is fixed to that point in time. The Department will make a decision on that.

The person may look for a review if the decision is not favourable, then may look for an appeal and then may look for a review of the appeal on a point of law or based on new facts or evidence. There is a long process and many opportunities for people to engage with it and make their best case. Everything is fixed to the date of claim. Even if I bring in more information and evidence at a later point in time, unless it is relevant at the date of claim, it will not change the original decision. If people have had a change of circumstances or think they may now be entitled, they should make a fresh claim. That is the first head, the time-length one.

The second relates to the opinions of medical assessors. For some schemes, the Department looks for a medical assessor to assess the eligibility of the person. That is an opinion but the appeals office will make a decision on that. This amendment makes it clearer at what point the medical assessor opinions can be looked for in the appeals process. There are certain regulations in one of the SIs on that but there has been a lot of uncertainty around it and we want to make the when, how and who clear so that the customer is aware of when these opinions are got and when they are before the appeals officer.

The next one relates to power to remit. As it stands, the appeals officer makes a decision and a person can appeal that based on an error in fact or law to the Chief Appeals Officer. That is a review under section 318 of the Act. The Chief Appeals Officer will look at the whole appeal but does not have the power to remit back in the process. For example, if a person looked for an oral hearing that was not given to them and the Chief Appeals Officer feels it should have been, she has no power to remit that back. For other errors of law that come up in the appeals office decision, there is no option for her to remit that back. That is what this should do. It should speed things up and make the process quicker and probably add to the efficiency of the section 318 process.

The final one is a technical one. Section 327 is where people can appeal a decision of an appeals officer or the Chief Appeals Officer to the High Court on a point of law. It is not in relation to the facts of the case; it is on a point of law. There is a technical question around whether a decision of the Chief Appeals Officer not to revise the decision of an appeals officer can be appealed to the High Court. We have had a recent judgment that states, basically, it can. This is a little tidy-up to make things clearer for everybody. Whether an appeals officer decision or an Chief Appeals Officer decision is made, they can both be appealed to the High Court on a point of law.

Those are the four amendments.

It would be remiss of me not to say something general while all the witnesses are present. I recall when I came in here first. Some would say I am here too long but I am still here. When I came in here in 1981, I recall the Order Paper and the number of parliamentary questions tabled to the Ministers for Health and Social Welfare in those days. There were hundreds and hundreds. It was such a waste of time for officials. Someone decided to put a system in place whereby we could ring Longford regarding disability allowance, carer's allowance and carer's benefit, Sligo regarding contributory or non-contributory pensions or Letterkenny regarding child benefit. Another very good one is Buncrana, where I can very quickly get a person's contributions over the years while also dealing with the mother who is rearing the children. There are so few questions tabled now. The witnesses are at a different level but the people manning desks in those offices are extremely helpful. Sometimes when I do not get the answer I want, I accept it because they can tell me exactly why.

The other one that was very clever was to look for a review rather than an appeal. I will not say all nice things. The appeal takes a long time. I presume there are staffing issues. It takes a long time to get it through the appeals office. Anyway, we are where we are.

The other issue is client identity. People require it who are buying land and may have been abroad. It all happens very quickly. We can be critical at times but I would like to acknowledge the work of those officials. Whoever thought about it and whoever initiated it, it saved the Department a fortune. It is important to us because we can get the answers very quickly. I could be ringing about the same one week after week but they are always very nice and helpful.

In the Deputy's long years, he has got to know the system very well.

I am still learning.

If any of the three Departments has any comments to make as we sum up our discussions today, I would appreciate it.

I thank the committee for its time and questions. We all appreciate its taking the time to go through pre-legislative scrutiny of the 25 heads of the Bill. I will bring back Deputy Gallagher's message to our operational team. It puts huge store and effort into doing it. We pride ourselves on being able to provide that service. It is in our interest and, more importantly, the interest of both sides that the Deputy serves and we serve, in terms of providing a better service to the person who most requires assistance.

We are conscious there was an appeals backlog but we put in huge effort and focus and we made great progress on reducing it. That involved additional resources and streamlining processes. Part of the heads of the Bill will also contribute to getting appeal decisions as quickly as possible. The Deputy is right that the review process is quicker and more efficient. Options are available to people, all of which we are committed to supporting.

I thank our colleagues in the Department of Social Protection for agreeing to take these technical amendments in. We are confident they will add to the smooth operation of the tribunal for a quick and cleaner process.

I thank our colleagues. The amendments are to respond to the concerns of people who were subject to illegal birth registration and to make clear we have consulted about it. We would appreciate the committee's support.

On behalf of the committee, I thank all the officials for coming in, for the discussion and for providing briefing materials in advance. We appreciate that from all three Departments. It makes it easier to make our considerations going forward.