Social Welfare, Civil Registration and Charities (Amendment) Bill 2026: Second Stage

Tairgim: “Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair anois." I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce the Social Welfare, Civil Registration and Charities (Amendment) Bill 2026 go dtí an Dáil. The Bill contains measures to amend the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, the Civil Registration Act 2004 and the Charities Act 2009. This reflects the wide range of areas under the remit of the Departments of Social Protection and Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht. I thank all the civil servants involved in the preparation of the Bill. On the social welfare side, a key provision in the Bill is to provide the legislative basis for public service cardholders to be able to use their cards, of their own volition and on a purely voluntary basis, as a form of identity. Currently, only public sector bodies specified in law can request and accept the public services card as a form of identity. If any other institution does so, for example, a bank, credit union or utility company, it is guilty of an offence. The amendment provided in the Bill will facilitate people to offer their public services card as a form of identity if they wish to do so. It will not enable institutions to request it, but they will no longer be guilty of an offence if they accept it as proof of identity. The Bill also provides the legislative basis for a person to be able to request that their date of birth be inscribed on their public services card. Again, this will only be included if the cardholder requests it. The intention is to facilitate people who may wish to use their card as a form of age verification. The Bill also provides for a range of amendments to improve the functioning of the social welfare appeals office and a number of technical amendments to keep the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 up do date as part of an ongoing programme of legislative modernisation. On the civil registration side, there are two main types of provisions included in the Bill. One set will make improvements to the functioning of the General Register Office. I will outline the specific amendments when I go through the Bill section by section. The second set of amendments includes a range of proposals from my colleague the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality. While the Civil Registration Act 2004 falls under my remit, the Minister for Children, Disability and Equality has responsibility for birth information and tracing and for the State’s response to illegal birth registrations. The Birth Information and Tracing Act 2022 contains a range of measures to address issues arising for people affected by illegal birth registration, as well as amendments to the Civil Registration Act 2004. In the course of engagements with officials in the Department of Children, Disability, and Equality, persons affected by illegal birth registrations requested improvements to the terminology used. The Department of Children, Disability and Equality has worked closely with officials from my Department and the special advocate for survivors to develop the amendments, including changing the title of the register, created by Part 9 of the Birth Information and Tracing Act 2022, from the "Register under Part 3B” to the “Register of Lived Identity”, and changing the term used to "withdrawal" of an entry in the register of births rather than "cancellation". In order to ensure, as far as possible, that all affected people’s views were heard and taken into account, the proposed changes were the subject of a public consultation which ran from 13 March to 10 April of this year. Some 166 responses were received from affected persons, others who were adopted or boarded out and their families and friends. There was overwhelming support for the proposed changes. The Bill also amends access to the register of lived identity to make it more open, where an affected person so wishes. Importantly, these proposed amendments will not affect the rights of people who wish for their entry to remain private. The third Act amended by this Bill is the Charities Act of 2009. Members of the Charity Appeals Tribunal provide an essential service to the charities sector in Ireland. I thank the chairman and members of the tribunal for their ongoing expertise, commitment and careful consideration of each case that comes before them. The amendments to the Act are wholly technical and operational in nature. However, they are essential in supporting the ongoing efficient operation of the tribunal and ensuring that it can deliver on the statutory requirements relating to it. Members will be aware that the general scheme of the Bill was the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny in April and May this year. I thank the Chair, Deputy John Paul O'Shea, and all members of the committee for their work in this process. I welcome the support of the committee in progressing the amendments to the Civil Registration Act and the Charities Act. The joint committee's pre-legislative report contained a number of recommendations about the digitalisation of services. It wanted to make sure that offline application options remain possible, that digital systems are accessible and inclusive, that the impact on take-up is monitored and that there is engagement with the representative groups. I could not agree more. I am strongly committed to this. My Department and its officials will deliver. My Department's strategy is to encourage the take-up of online services on a digital-by-desire basis, rather than to require or compel customers to use the online options. In designing and in delivering digital services, accessibility is always a key focus in the Department, with accessibility testing completed on all services being developed on our digital platforms before they go live. Customers are routinely advised of the various channels available to access Department services, enabling them to choose the option that is most appropriate to their circumstances. Officials regularly engage with advocacy groups, representative organisations and customers to inform continuous service improvement across all of our delivery channels. The report also made a number of recommendations about the processing of personal data. I put on record that the processing of personal data, including very sensitive personal data, is subject to clearly specified safeguards under the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, as amended. It is also done in accordance with GDPR requirements. My Department actively implements its range of oversight arrangements for all of its processing of personal data. I have taken particular note of the recommendations relating to informing individuals that the use of a public services card is voluntary, either by legislation or by a public awareness campaign. I support the underlying objective of these recommendations. I have asked officials to examine them further in advance of Committee Stage. I will go through the Bill section by section. The Bill contains 26 sections in four Parts. In Part 1, sections 1 and 2 contain standard provisions of the Short Title, construction, collective citation, definitions and commencement. Section 3 provides for the repeal of section 14 of the Civil Registration (Electronic Registration) Act 2024. This is a consequential amendment. This section shall come into effect following the commencement of section 21 of this Bill. Part 2 amends the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. Section 4 provides for the repeal of pre-retirement allowance and removes references to the scheme in the principal Act. This scheme has been closed to new applicants since 2007. There are no customers in receipt of this payment. Section 5 is part of the legislation modernisation programme. It provides for an update of references to tax regulations in the principal Act. Section 6 provides for the abolition of the provision whereby a person may be disqualified from receipt of jobseeker's benefit for a certain period and in certain circumstances when he or she receives a redundancy payment. This provision is no longer a requirement since the introduction of a pay-related jobseeker's benefit scheme. Section 7 provides for a number of technical amendments to the name of schemes consequent to the Social Welfare (Bereaved Partner's Pension and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2025. Section 8 provides for amendments to section 263 to allow a public services cardholder, at his or her request, to inscribe his or her date of birth on the public services card to enable the public services card to be used as a means of verifying age. The cardholder may also request the removal of the date of birth from the public services card. In addition, it allows the cardholder to offer the public services card at his or her own discretion as a form of identity for a purpose that is not a transaction with a specified body, that is not a public sector body that is specified in Schedule 5 of the Act. It clarifies that the public services card remains the property of the Minister for Social Protection at all times, and that the card is non-transferable. Section 9 amends section 300A of the principal Act, which provides the statutory basis for deciding officers to seek a medical assessor's opinion in determining entitlement to certain benefits. This amendment further provides that appeals officers and the chief appeal officer may seek the opinion of a medical assessor when deciding questions related to the relevant statutory duties. Section 10 provides that the chief appeals officer may remit a decision back to an appeals officer for his or her consideration in circumstances where remittal will resolve the matter faster overall. Section 11 provides for the allowance of an appeal to the High Court on a point of law from any decision of the chief appeals officer, whether revised or unrevised. Part 3 amends the Civil Registration Act 2004. Section 12 provides for the definitions used in Part 3. Sections 13, 16, 18 and 22 substitute "register" or "register under 3B" with "register of lived identity" in various sections. Section 14 provides that the Child and Family Agency, Tusla, can register the birth of a child with the father's details on foot of a court order, naming him as the father of the child. Section 15 provides for the re-registration of a birth, to correct the name of a father where the Child and Family Agency, Tusla, is the qualified informant and where that agency has been granted a court order, naming the father of a child under section 35 of the Status of Children Act 1987. Section 17 provides for the substitution of section 30H, "Correction, cancellation or registration of entries in register of births", with a new section, "Error in relevant entry". Section 19 amends section 30J, which provides that an tArd-Chláraitheoir maintains an index to the register of lived identity and sets out who may apply for a search of the register and the index. This amendment allows a person who has been nominated by the affected person or a member of the public to make an application to an tArd-Chláraitheoir where the person affected by the illegal birth registration gives his or her permission in writing. Section 20 provides for the public inspection of information on the index linking the register of births and the register of lived identity where the affected person to whom the information pertains has given his or her consent to an tArd-Chláraitheoir to make his or her entry publicly available. Section 21 provides that a medical practitioner who attended to a deceased person outside of a hospital or other institution may authorise a person to perform the medical practitioner's duty to notify the particulars of a death to an tArd-Chláraitheoir. Section 23 allows an tArd-Chláraitheoir to correct a factual or clerical error in an online registration where that error has been notified to an tArd-Chláraitheoir by any person, including the staff of an tArd-Chláraitheoir. Section 24 updates the provisions for vital statistics in section 73 of the Civil Registration Act 2004 to align with the current practices on the compilation, abstraction and publication of vital statistics, which is now primarily conducted by the Central Statistics Office. However, I bring to the attention of Deputies that following further consultation with the Central Statistics Office, I am of a view that a more extensive review of the vital statistics provisions in the Civil Registration Act 2004 and its relationship with provisions in the Statistics Act 1993 would put the processing of vital statistics on a more robust legal footing. For that reason, I intend to introduce a Committee Stage amendment to remove section 24 from the Bill to allow sufficient time for my officials to liaise with the General Register Office, the Central Statistics Office and the Office of the Attorney General on this matter. Section 25 amends the particulars required when registering a birth or stillbirth so that signatures are only required where applicable, given the option of online registration. Part 4 of this Bill amends the Charities Act 2009. Section 26 amends section 33 of the 2009 Act with revised definitions for the relevant Minister, the relevant body and the relevant regulator. In addition, it amends section 77 of the 2009 Act, setting the quorum of the Charity Appeals Tribunal at three members, including the chairperson. These amendments also provide for the nomination of a deputy chairperson to chair a hearing of a tribunal in the absence of the appointed chairperson. Finally, it provides that witnesses before the tribunal will have an immunity from disclosing information or providing evidence about a certain subject. This is mainly a technical Bill. I thank the Deputies who were involved in pre-legislative scrutiny. I commend the Bill to the House.

The Minister will know my views on this because we have had a discussion about it. For the purpose of putting them on the record, however, I cannot emphasise how foolish I believe it will be to allow this Bill to pass in its current form, owing to the provisions specifically in section 8, which seek to expand further the functions of the public services card, PSC. This is being done at a time when that very card and the legal underpinning are being called into question in court. The Minister will know that his colleague, the former Minister, Regina Doherty, famously said in 2018 that the PSC was "mandatory" but "not compulsory". We have been asking ourselves at the committee - the Minister might not say in this House, but he might have scratched his head and asked - what, in the name of God, does that actually mean? In her confused statement, I believe she gave away what the Government's intentions are, which is to keep expanding this card and its use and to make it into a de facto national ID card without the proper security features that any such card should have. Though the Government has consistently tried to row back on the former Minister, Regina Doherty's statements, insisting that the card is voluntary in practice, it risks becoming effectively mandatory because when a single ID card becomes widely accepted across the public and private sectors, people will feel a pressure to use it. This is a fact and there are multiple international examples of this. I scratch my head about this all the time. In the same breath as the Minister says that it is voluntary, I also know that the free travel pass cannot be accessed without it. That is not voluntary. A person can volunteer to not have the free travel pass. That is not fair. Most of these people have worked all their lives. People look forward to getting the free travel pass. Of course they do. Now they have to have the PSC. That is not fair nor voluntary. The only thing a person can volunteer to do is not get the travel pass to which they are entitled. I am concerned, as are others, that this centralised use could also weaken the security of the PSC. The Government has consistently dismissed the concerns in its response to the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, Digital Rights Ireland and my own contribution during pre-legislative scrutiny. National ID cards are tough and difficult to make. They should be, and for a reason. Biometric data is ever-more sensitive in our changing world and the absolute bare minimum provisions needed, I believe, are at least that the card be protected by an up-to-date, state-of-the-art security feature, so that a person may use a virtual PPSN rather than revealing their PPSN; that the public service identity dataset is not used in any way, shape or form for biometric matching; and that the PSC must allow cryptographic authentication. This is not the case with this card as it stands. I am baffled as to what the rush is. A legal case is under way. The Minister is well aware of that. It is entirely possible to wait for the outcome of that. If the Minister is so set on putting this card into use, he should wait until it has proper legislative underpinning. I believe the current underpinning is quite shaky. MyGovID and SAFE Registration still do not have a proper statutory basis. I am conscious that there is a lot more in this legislation than just the public services card but it is the one that took up some time when we considered the Bill in the committee. It is the one around which I have most concerns. As the Minister has said, the rest of the Bill is technical in nature. This is really important. People in Digital Rights Ireland and the ICCL, serious people who have given over time to study this, are sounding alarm bells. The Government is still parroting that mortifying line from the former Minister that it is mandatory but not compulsory. It is compulsory if a person wants to have the free travel pass. It is becoming more and more embedded. We are heading down a road without proper discussion and consultation. We are heading in the direction of a national ID card and I do not believe that this is what people want. In the absence of a discussion, it is said of the public services card that a person might like it but they do not have to have it. The Government will then add little bits to it until, eventually, we find ourselves in a situation where people cannot access the travel pass or public services without it. It is becoming increasingly more difficult. The Minister said in his opening remarks that he wants to make sure that offline application options remain possible, and that the digital systems are accessible and inclusive. They have to be accessible and inclusive to people who have legitimate concerns in relation to the storing of their biometric and other data. They are not. For as long as they are not, we have no option but to oppose this. The Minister said that the Department's strategy is to encourage the take-up of online services on a digital-by-desire basis but that is not the case with at least one aspect. We know that this is going to grow. He told us that he took particular note of the recommendations relating to informing individuals that the use of the PSC is voluntary, either by legislation or by a public awareness campaign, and that he supports the underlying objective of the recommendations and that he has asked his officials to examine them further. We will have this discussion on Committee Stage and I look forward to it. I hope the Minister looks forward to receiving the amendments that I will be putting down and having that engagement, because it is important. We would be foolish, as would the Minister, to stand in this Chamber and pretend that there are not legitimate concerns. People are concerned. They are concerned about the processing of their data, about giving over information without necessarily knowing that the information is needed and that the information will be handled correctly. There is an ongoing legal case, which I will not refer to. In that atmosphere and given that fact, it is incumbent on us to go slowly on this, to have that consultation and to listen to those experts. There was no meaningful consultation, no quantifiable way of establishing whether or not people actually want this card. I note that representatives from the Department say that people want the card but it is not asking if people want the card. They are applying for it in many instances because they do not have a choice but that is not the same thing as saying that they want the card. I look forward to engaging with this legislation on Committee Stage. I look forward to debating amendments that will be brought forward by myself and others. I assure the Minister of our co-operation in getting business done as quickly as we possibly can but he can also be on notice that we will not rush to a timetable that may or may not suit other people. We will be putting those concerns to the fore. People value their data. More and more, people are talking about concerns in relation to their own data protection and GDPR. This legislation does not do anything to allay the cautions that are necessary in relation to those concerns. For that reason, we will be putting forward amendments. In his remarks, the Minister has signalled a willingness to bring amendments on Committee Stage for certain aspects. I ask him to have a look at the points made by the ICCL and Digital Rights Ireland, to take them on board and to bring forward consequent amendments that will reflect the concerns that are out there.

The majority of the provisions in this Bill are procedural, and, as Deputy O'Reilly said already, we will not oppose them. However, section 8 of this Bill must be removed. It must be made explicitly clear that a person should have access to any service available without using a public services card other than the Department of Social Protection. This must reflect the current legal position arising from the agreement between the Data Protection Commission and the Department of Social Protection. If enacted, section 8 would lead to the public services card becoming a de facto general-purpose ID card. The Government is making the public services card mandatory by stealth. I will give the Minister a personal example. My driver's licence was up for renewal. I applied to have it renewed but I could not without a public services card because I had changed address recently. I had not got a public services card, I never had a need for a public services card and I never had any interest in obtaining one but because you cannot renew your licence or learner permit online without a public services card, and because I needed a change of address, I had no choice but to apply for a public services card. I have one in my wallet as we speak. There was no other way to resolve this issue without my getting a public services card, so in this instance it was mandatory. As I said, the only voluntary part of this was for me to not drive any more. I need a licence. There are other cases, as has been raised already. If you are over 65 years of age, you cannot access free travel without a public services card. The Minister said in his opening remarks that the use of the public services card was voluntary but that is not voluntary to my mind. If over-65s want to access free travel, they have to have public services cards, and I just spoke about how I needed it to renew my driver licence. For me, that was mandatory. Turning to section 10, I tabled a number of questions to the Minister for oral answer. They were not chosen, so I will bring them up here instead, as they are loosely related to section 10, which relates to the Chief Appeals Officer. I hope that will lead to quicker decisions being made. That needs to be done. I want to raise the issue of appeals when things fall through the cracks. The Department of Social Protection is using GoFundMe-type fundraisers to deny people exceptional needs payments. I had a case recently when a single mother passed away, leaving a young family. Most of them are under the age of 18 and it will mostly be left to the oldest daughter to take over their guardianship. The community has rallied around this young family in these tragic circumstances, which is welcome, and it did a GoFundMe to deal with costs that might occur down the line. It raised a moderate amount, not a huge amount. One of the children, who at the time was a young adult, applied for an exceptional needs payment to cover funeral expenses but that was denied because of the GoFundMe. The applicant was never asked to disclose this, which leads me to believe that somewhere in the Department there is someone who, when they see a tragic death in a community, goes online to look to see if a GoFundMe was set up. That is immoral to me and does not sit right. Furthermore, when someone applies for an exceptional needs payment, they are asked to disclose the means they have at the moment. They are not asked to disclose any future means they may have. At the time of the application, the family had not received any benefit from the GoFundMe - there is not even any guarantee this family will receive the money from it - yet it was assessed on it anyway. I submitted parliamentary questions to the Minister on this recently to see how widespread the practice was because I do not believe it is an isolated incident. Another issue related to appeals that is coming up with us regularly has to do with how fuel allowance is awarded. If you are on an invalidity pension and you are able to move onto a CE scheme – and it is welcome when someone is looking to come off invalidity payments and come back to the workspace – you are not allowed to apply for fuel allowance. I am asking that this be examined. Also, if an adult is working and still living at home with their parents, the parents are not allowed to apply for the fuel allowance. I have raised how this scenario of working adults living at home is happening more often because of the housing crisis and I would like the Minister to look at it. I wish to raise a final matter that I have raised before. I have noticed a pattern with people coming to me with the same problem around the domiciliary carers allowance. A very high percentage of applicants seem to be turned down on their first application only to get it on appeal. Figures I received last year told me that 33% of all first-time applicants for the domiciliary care allowance were refused. Fifty percent of those appealed and of the 2,146 appeals, over 1,300 were successful. On that evidence, I would recommend to any parent out there who was denied domiciliary carers allowance to appeal it because on the evidence I have from the Minister’s Department, they are likely to win. As one parent said to me, you would think the Government just wants people to go away after the first application is denied. To be honest, looking at these figures, it is hard not to agree with that sentiment.

As I follow my two colleagues, the Minister will have got the idea that we have a particular problem with section 8, and why would we not? Anyone who had needed State services in the last while knows that, in order to access them, particularly online, a public services card is required. We need to just knock the idea that it is voluntary on its head straight away. We know there are huge issues. For want of a better term, how the State came upon something like 70% of the biometric information and data was illegal. I would like that point answered. There is a real issue. Deputy Ward spoke about his driver licence. I can speak about my own young fellow and his permit. He is not driving at the moment, which can be a nuisance to me. Some of that delay is down to him but there is also the fact that there was a requirement for a public services card. There has to be a greater element of truth around the fact that this is becoming a requirement, an almost requirement or something where the State has made things so hard that it may as well be a requirement for State services. With many of the people who come into our constituency offices, we tell them that is the easiest way to do it. If what the Department is looking for is a State or national ID, then it should be clear about that. There is an issue about the information and how it is contained. Deputy O’Reilly spoke about how we had no level of security over what is required. We have all spoken about our own information and the data analytics being carried out by firms that are interested in making money. There is a better knowledge of GDPR and data privacy. When the State has this information, we need to ensure that it has been obtained legally, is operated correctly and is protected with a sufficient level of security, which I do not think is currently the case. Similar to the point raised by Deputy Ward, I have a very specific ask around additional needs payments. I have dealt with an issue for a number of constituents, some who have got over the line and others who have not, who have had boilers that went kaput and they did not have the money or time to undergo a full Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, warmer homes retrofit or whatever. Previously, they would have been able to apply for housing for older people supports from the local authority but now the only thing you can get if you want an oil or gas boiler is a refurbished boiler. I challenge anyone to go out and try to find one of those. I would say it would be very difficult. I would even guess it was impossible. The service was provided in particular for those who were older and who would not have had the money to pay for this or to do the full retrofit required. We all know the best thing that can be done for a lot of older houses is to ensure they are proofed from the point of view of decent windows, doors and insulation. It does not always make great sense to introduce things like air-to-water pumps or renewable forms of energy. We know the necessity of ensuring that the house is airtight. My office is wasting time making multiple applications that fail just so people can look to apply for an additional needs payment. I have a parliamentary question in to the Minister. I also have a parliamentary question in to the Minister for housing on the reverse. It is an issue that needs to be addressed. We get that in a perfect scenario we would be dealing with brand-new builds that are airtight and looking at air-to-air-type heating systems that work perfectly in those sets of circumstances, although that is very difficult to do from a retrofit point of view. The fact is that a huge number of people do not have the resources to outlay that money, and at this point in time a resource that was available to them previously is not available, whether that is through an additional needs payment or, as I said, through some of the supports that were available through the local authority. Between the Minister, Deputy Calleary, and the Minister for housing, it is something that needs to be addressed.

I thank the Minister and his officials for bringing forward this Bill, much of which contains, as he said, technical and administrative rationalisations. That is the unseen and unglamorous work in legislation and Departments but it is important, and I sincerely thank the officials for doing it. Improvements to the operations of the Charities Regulator are very welcome to ensure public confidence in the efficiency and effectiveness of its governance. Charities do incredible work across this State in aiding our most vulnerable, and proper administration, enabled by legislation and the regulator, is critical to proper oversight. I also welcome the adjustments to the Civil Registration Act to make it more inclusive for the modern era. It is not very often that we do this continuously in Government Departments, and when it does happen it should be applauded. Progress sometimes means reform, and this is a very good example of it. I also thank the Minister and his officials for the meaningful engagement with those adopted or boarded out. I hope that is progress that continues hereafter. Lastly, I acknowledge the changes to the eligibility requirements for jobseeker's benefit to include those who have received redundancy payments. Losses of income and livelihoods should not be compounded by a State that does not do all it can to help people in that moment. The change here to include people who have recently been made redundant is very welcome, especially in the context of cascading layoffs in many companies in my constituency. I encourage the Minister, however, to explore how people who are in self-employment and who may have catastrophic collapses in their income are supported. Many contractors in these companies in my constituency employ people who are dependent on occasional gig-like work, who earn on average much less than PAYE workers do and who need to be similarly supported so they are not put into incredible precarity. There is work to be done there, and if the principle of this change in the Bill is to support people who have lost their income regardless of redundancy payments or other means, that should be a universal principle applied equally. There is, however, a core issue in this Bill that featured prominently in the pre-legislative scrutiny at committee, which I will now turn to, namely section 8 of the Bill, which seeks to amend legislation for an operation of the public services card. I want to be very clear in acknowledging the good parts of the public services card. It is a free card, unlike other forms of identification, like a driver's licence or a passport. That is of particular importance to people in low-income populations. I support the provisions of the Bill in ensuring that individuals are in control of who or what entity they give their public services card information to and can do so only with the cardholder's consent. That is a good principle. The existing use of the public services card in engagement with public services is primarily for social protection payments. Public use has increased drastically since its introduction, and many entities, like credit unions and NGOs, have voiced support for more widespread allowance of the use of the card to facilitate ordinary transactions, particularly for populations without a driver's licence or a passport. There is no denying, however, that the public services card as an identity card has had a controversial past in this Chamber and outside of it since its introduction as a pilot by then Labour Minister Joan Burton in 2011. Today, 15 years later, there are 3.25 million cards in circulation, and 4.5 million in the population are SAFE registered, or have registered their information with the data system governing the card, including supplying biometric data that can be used by facial recognition software. Core to the criticism of the public services card in the past, including by the Data Protection Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General, is that there has been no primary legislation, business case or meaningful public debate on the issue of a broader digital identity infrastructure for citizens of this State. In effect, the card has introduced a State identity infrastructure through the back door. In 2012 the Department started using the card's biometric facial data with facial recognition technology, and in 2025 the Data Protection Commissioner found that this use was "unlawful" and levied a fine of €550,000 against the Department of Social Protection, a decision later appealed by the Department and currently before the courts. It is notable that the use of facial recognition technology on this data means that the Department and, by extension, others, including the Garda, can facially detect up to 70% of the population. This leaves some significant cause for concern. Notably, the DPC has said in committee that if it wins the case, it may use its full enforcement powers against the Department, namely: Where we make a finding of unlawful processing of personal data, we can require the processing to cease, ban the processing from recommencing and require the data to be deleted. If our decision in this case is upheld, what we will be looking for is for those types of corrective measures to be implemented ... This would effectively mean that all facial images may have to be purged from the Department's databases and the practice of collecting them and using them in facial recognition by the Department would have to halt. To date, no High Court or Supreme Court judgment has determined whether the PSC scheme is lawful or unlawful. The governance, legislative basis and operations of the data associated with citizens through the PSC have been challenged repeatedly by other NGOs, including the ICCL, UCD's centre for digital policy and other concerned citizens. Some have gone so far as to call it "unlawful". The central controversy surrounding the card in Ireland historically has been its use, or potential use, as an identity card without being called one, or such use being legislated for, or this being the subject of sufficient public debate about the need, business case, purpose or risks associated with such use. I am reminded here, as were other speakers, of the radio interview in which then Fine Gael Minister Regina Doherty declared it was "mandatory" but "not compulsory". Today many social protection services and, reportedly, many other public services are in effect not easily accessible without a public services card. One witness at committee, Dr. Elizabeth Farries of the UCD centre for digital policy, said it was "becoming effectively mandatory". Notwithstanding the concerns about the PSC and identity infrastructure as they currently exist, much of my core concern during our pre-legislative scrutiny focused on how the scheme may be applied in the future. As Dr. Ferries described, the PSC enables a "broad interoperable identity infrastructure in which data sets become linkable, profiling becomes easier and information collection for one purpose migrates into others". On the question of function creep, or the data that would be used for things that it was not originally intended to be used for, there is precedent, as was reported to the committee. Given recent pronouncements by the Minister for culture and the President of the European Commission with regard to digital ID and integration of such IDs to authorise access to social media, there is some cause for concern that such identity infrastructure would extend use into the digital sphere and, in particular, social media. Dr. T.J. McIntyre of the ICCL said at committee that he suspected the effort from the Department of Social Protection and the Department of public expenditure and reform: ... was to become an all-in-one public identification database, ... all of which is viewable by everybody and every government department. ... The problem is that, as things stand, the underlying database of the public services card ... is essentially a 360 degree view of the individual which contains all this information and does not have these more granular access controls in place regarding who can see what and which, if it is expanded for identity verification or age verification in other contexts, will unnecessarily leak information in those other contacts as well. There are fraud risks associated with giving out too much of this data. If the future of the SAFE data, or PSC data, in particular facial recognition data, is the starting point of a more comprehensive database of activity of people on this island, the further contention is that this could lead to a kind of Big Brother or surveillance state infrastructure, including the use of such technology to profile the population. This was the most significant warning from witnesses - that the use of this data and the associated technologies could underpin a surveillance architecture through facial recognition. Dr. Ferries highlighted this repeatedly as a future risk. There are, she said, risks in surveillance associated with "proportionality, democratic oversight, discrimination risks and the protection of fundamental rights showing up time and again". It is clear that there should have been a more comprehensive national debate on the question of national identity infrastructure. Primary legislation should have been moved, and the question of the primary uses of such infrastructure, the business case for its costs, the benefits, advantages or disadvantages and the oversight of such a system should have been part of that debate. We have still not had that. However, I acknowledge the public desire that the State facilitate the use of public services through more modern technologies. Many would argue that the State needs to modernise even more, and that public service cards yield usability benefits to the general public. Since independence the Republic has had no major crisis of civil liberties. We live in a liberal society where privacy is respected in virtually all aspects of the law. Ireland also enjoys a fairly high level of trust among the public and the organs of the State. There is an expectation that they will interact with them in a fair way. This is internationally unusual. There are countless examples of other countries' police or military infrastructure being used against the populace in a systematic way. This has led, in other jurisdictions, to an inherent distrust of the state holding data on the person, restrictions on the use of that data and stronger legal and constitutional protections for privacy, confidentiality and proper oversight and governance. In the age of information technology, the ability of any state to use personal information for nefarious purposes has extended. The linking of data sets has become a much easier proposition than it was in the past, leading to a higher functionality for state systems in a variety of use cases. In the case of domestic surveillance of the population, new frontiers have opened and been pursued by governments internationally. That must be opposed and condemned, and I join anyone in that mission. Notwithstanding Ireland's unique peaceful and lawful experience in these areas, there is always a risk that a future government or administration could use the infrastructure of the State to encroach on civil liberties, to target minority populations, for instance, or suppress political dissent. Furthermore, should the data be accessed by unscrupulous actors like hackers, compromised individuals within State bodies or foreign state actors, especially in the age of supercharged invasive AI, individuals could be targeted using the information held by the State without proper protection. There is a real risk that the infrastructure we build today could be misused. From the perspective of the Oireachtas it is difficult to make an assessment of the proper governance of this data, or its future uses without more information on how the Department is using it, so I sought to do just that. I recently corresponded with the Minister for Social Protection on issues that have been raised in pre-legislative scrutiny, namely the uses, governance and future plans for public services card infrastructure. The information he provided was helpful and I sincerely thank him and his officials for being transparent, clear and comprehensive on these matters. I have some follow-up questions that I will return to him in due course. One part of the correspondence did cause me some concern, however. Under section 41(b) of the Data Protection Act 2018, the Department of Social Protection can supply any public services card data to An Garda if deemed, "necessary and proportionate for the purposes [of] (a) of preventing a threat to national security, defence or public security [or] (b) of preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting criminal offences." That does create a wide applicability without oversight, judicial or otherwise, and may be used as a pretext for law enforcement powers to use the data for means beyond what we might reasonably expect for social protection purposes. International experience would suggest this can be misused. While I have every faith, as I believe most people in this country do, that An Garda acts with probity in its role, that unfortunately may not always be the case in the future. In summary, I welcome most of the provisions in this Bill. I still have some outstanding concerns on the identity infrastructure in Ireland, in particular how it might be misused in the future. I encourage the Minister to engage with the Data Protection Commissioner and other concerned citizens on their concerns about civil liberties and privacy, and on how we build a modern state that works for all of us and protects us all.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Social Welfare, Civil Registration and Charities (Amendment) Bill 2026. While the Bill is largely technical in nature, it really matters to the people it impacts. The changes to the civil registration are straightforward and welcome. Tusla will be able to re-register a father's details for a child in its care on foot of a court declaration or order. The notification of deaths is modernised so a hospital or doctor can authorise another person to notify the General Register Office within five working days. These are sensible and practical reforms, and I support them. The most important changes in this part of the Bill are for people whose births were illegally registered. For decades babies were placed with couples and registered as if they had been born to them. There was no adoption order. There was no record they could find. For many, there was no knowledge at all. In 2018, Tusla identified 126 illegal registrations in the records of St. Patrick’s Guild, covering the years 1946 to 1969. That number has since risen to 151 confirmed cases. The Birth Information and Tracing Act 2022 gave those affected the right to an accurate birth registration and legal recognition of the identity they have lived. That was real progress, and I acknowledge the work of successive Ministers, Tusla and the General Register Office in getting there. This Bill builds on that. Under the current law an incorrect entry on the register of births is cancelled. For people who have lived their whole lives under the name, that word was deeply hurtful to them and to their families. It suggested that their identity had simply been struck out. This Bill removes that, and I welcome it. Instead, the entry will be noted, kept on the record, but no longer issued as a certificate. A certificate from the new registration of lived identity will serve wherever a birth certificate is required. The Bill also lets people choose who can see their record, namely family members, or the public if they wish. That is their direction and decision, and it is right that the law now respects it. I welcome that the Department consulted survivors on these changes earlier in the year. That should be standard and not the exception. It would be helpful if survivor groups were consulted at every stage of this legislation, and I hope Committee Stage will assist in that regard. There is one gap I ask the Minister to look at. Only the affected person can nominate someone or open their record. Where that person has passed away, their children and grandchildren have no way to make that choice. A provision allowing a personal representative or next of kin to exercise it would be a reasonable amendment, and a helpful one. I ask the Minister to consider it for Committee Stage. Survivors and their families want to see the outstanding issues resolved. The youngest of those in the St. Patrick’s Guild records are now in their 50s and the eldest are approaching 80 and time is ticking. I have raised the case of Susan Kiernan in this House before. Sadly, Susan has passed away. I know the Minister is aware of the case, as are many who have been in his position. These provisions also need a commencement order, and I urge the Minister to make it as soon as possible when the Bill is enacted. I turn to the social protection appeals. The Bill sets a two-year window for requesting a review of a decision by an appeals officer or the chief appeals officer. That is sensible and it is in line with the approach to reviews elsewhere in the system. This Bill also gives the chief appeals officer a new power to annul a flawed decision and send it back to an appeals officer for fresh consideration. However, the bigger issue for most people is how long an appeal itself takes in the first place. I will return to that, and I know the Minister is prioritising it. I turn to the public services card. Its establishment was messy. As an old Irish saying goes, "If I were going there, I would not start from here." I have always said that the Government should have introduced comprehensive and clear legislation at the outset. That said, I welcome the provisions allowing the card to be used as proof of identity, and as proof of age where the holder asks for their date of birth to be added. Passports and driving licences cost money and many young people have neither. This will help them to prove who they are, to open a bank account and join a credit union, etc. It must remain the cardholder’s choice, and the Bill keeps it an offence for anyone outside the public services to demand it. A card is only useful if you can get one, however. Anyone without a current Irish passport cannot register through the MyGovID app, so they need an appointment in person. The most common public services card issue raised with me in my office is simply getting that appointment. The Minister will know that I have raised this on many occasions and in parliamentary questions. A proper online booking system available at every public services centre is necessary. My constituents in Dún Laoghaire and those around the country should be able to book a slot online, at a time that suits them, as they already can for driver’s licences. I would welcome progress on this. Equally, I would welcome progress on the time taken to process appeals. Behind every average is a person waiting. I have constituents who have waited significant periods for a final answer with no income in the meantime. Many of those appealing are people with disabilities, carers and families on low incomes. For them, every week of delay costs money that they do not have. Better first decisions would mean fewer appeals. Clearer information on how long an appeal would take would ease a great deal of worry. The appeals office should have the resources in it to clear the caseload. Finally, as I have the Minister here and budget 2027 is approaching, I would like to highlight a number of points. It is clear households are going to face a very challenging winter. The war in the Gulf has doubled wholesale gas prices compared with last year. Electric Ireland raised its prices in July. SSE Airtricity's increase adds an average of €310 a year for 296,000 customers, and Bord Gáis Energy's increase will add an estimated €317 to the average household bill from 9 October. Gas prices are already around 90% higher than they were four or five years ago and electricity is around 70% higher. The situation has further deteriorated recently and a general energy credit needs to be examined to shield householders from the worst of the increases. We also need to see generous increases in pensions, social welfare payments and child benefit, so that income keeps pace with the cost of heating a home and feeding and clothing a family. I ask the Minister to build on last year's progress in the budget, in particular on the fuel allowance, which rose to €38 a week in January, and families on the working family payment now qualify. That was the right decision. This year the rate should rise again and the income thresholds should be extended so that more households on modest incomes are brought in. In the last few minutes remaining to me I wish to raise the amendment to the Charities Act 2009. I am aware of a recent case where a charity with no assets at all went through a huge rigmarole to try to merge with another charity. That needs to be streamlined. It might not be addressed in this particular amendment, but it is something that we need to be cognisant of. I accept there need to be safeguards around charities and a whole system around it but there needs to be a varying degree of charities, some of which can easily either cease to trade or merge with others because that is going to come more to the fore as time goes on. I thank the Minister and his officials for their work on this Bill and in modernising services in the Department. I look forward to continuing to engage with him as this Bill progresses during and before the budget preparations.

I welcome the Minister to the House today. I also welcome the opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare, Civil Registration and Charities (Amendment) Bill 2026. The Minister will be very much aware that in July of this year, I and other members of the Joint Committee on Social Protection, Rural and Community Development published our pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of this Bill. I want to address those key considerations that were brought forward from those who appeared before the committee. I note that the Department is taking into consideration the recommendations brought forward by the committee ahead of Committee Stage of the Bill. A change to the public services card is an important part of this Bill and has been subject of a lot of debate in the past. Witnesses before the committee raised concerns about the use of the public services card as a form of age verification. Will the Government give due consideration to these concerns? This is particularly important given the revelation that the Data Protection Commission found the Department of Social Protection unlawfully processed facial biometric data of approximately 70% of people over 15 years of age. The second point made by members in the recommendations made by the committee was that: "the scope, limits to the scope and intended use of the Public Service Card be clearly set out in legislation. - Any proposals to extend the use of the Public Services Card to additional services be subject to appropriate legislative processes and oversight. - the use of the Public Services Card be supported by clear safeguards and transparency measures, including clear rules on [the use of] data - the voluntary nature of the Public Services Card be maintained in practice and monitored on [an] ongoing basis, to review that individuals are not disadvantaged where they choose not to use the card as a form of identification. Given these, I seriously question whether this is necessary. The public services card had a clear rationale: it was for accessing social protection payments and services, and then it was broadened to Government services. Now, the Government is going further and extending this to the private sector, in effect, becoming a de facto national identity card. As a national Parliament, we cannot allow this debate to go on without the Government addressing this fact. Is this in any way linked to the Government's so-called digital wallet and any forthcoming online safety measures? I seriously question whether this is necessary and if it is, the Government should outline its point and not bypass a debate on what is, for all intents and purposes, a national identity card. The Government must outline its intention now, and as quickly as possible. I note that a key part of the Bill deals with digitalisation. That being said, it is important to consider the impact this could have on a number of different cohorts, particularly older people and those in rural Ireland. According to the CSO, in 2025 34% of people aged 75 and over had never used the internet, while 17% of households said they did not have access to the internet because of a lack of digital skills. Furthermore, Age Action has also said that 62% of people aged 65 and over face digital exclusion. Equally, many parts of rural Ireland have poor internet connectivity, if they have any at all. The CSO reported that in 2025 only 84% of households in the midlands, which includes my county of Kildare, had access to fixed broadband. This is below the national average of 87%. Also, the percentage of those without internet access because it is unavailable in their area has only decreased by 1%, from 5% in 2024 to 4% in 2025. While I welcome the aims of the Bill regarding digitalisation, as TDs we cannot allow digitalisation to become an additional barrier for older people and those who live in rural Ireland. Digitalisation can only be done with inclusiveness at its centre, and alongside further improvements in internet connections and digital literacy skills. An example of this challenge is with the roll-out of the MyWelfare online service. This is, again, a very welcome modernisation of access to social protection, but it has become a barrier for many older people who are trying to apply for critical payments but find it difficult to print forms and fill them in. Any further development and expansion of digital services must only be done in a way that is inclusive of all people accessing services, in particular older people. This was one of the recommendations brought forward by the committee, and to ensure that the design and delivery of online services takes these barriers into consideration, while also allowing for opportunities to upskill older people in their digital skills. Are the provisions of head 8 of the general scheme now gone? That head would have allowed the Minister to put the existing code of practice for determining employment status on a statutory footing. I note that this is a follow-on from the Supreme Court's Karshan ruling, which has tightened the legal definition of self-employment. Putting the code on a statutory footing would fall short of what is needed to be done to tackle bogus self-employment and to protect workers in the gig economy. My Labour Party colleague, Deputy Marie Sherlock, previously introduced a Bill to address this in 2021. Could the Government clarify whether head 8 is gone from the Bill, or if it intends to use a different legislative mechanism? Like other colleagues, I welcome the aim of the Bill to make technical amendments to improve the work of the appeals office. This is something I have spoken to the Minister about for a long period. I have raised the long waiting time for processing appeals, which is having a detrimental impact on family carers, people with disabilities, lone parents and older people who are waiting to access vital payments. I am aware the Minister has carried out some work on this but could he continue to work on the length of time people are waiting for a decision on their appeals? I note that according to the most recent reply we have received from the Department of Social Protection the average waiting time is around 13 weeks. However, my office has been supporting people who have been waiting for up to a year to hear about their appeals. That is simply not good enough. In the past the Minister has agreed with me about this. I sincerely hope the proposed changes will go some way towards bringing down the waiting time for appeals, especially for those people who need the payments most. This is a very small piece of legislation but, as has been said by other colleagues in the Chamber tonight, there are much more urgent issues facing many low-income, vulnerable households. I am particularly concerned about the Taoiseach’s recent comments regarding child poverty and the statistics. Ireland is a rich country, so when we hear that the rate of child poverty is increasing it should be of concern to us all in the House. The Government should not be scraping the bottom of the barrel by talking about definitions of poverty when we know so many children are suffering. If this Government is serious about tackling child poverty and supporting low-income households, then budget 2027 should be a children's budget. We need fundamental reforms that support households with the rising cost of living. The Government needs to bring forward a second tier of child benefit payment to support those on lower incomes. That cannot be done alone because many working families are also struggling. They are struggling to pay bills and to put food on the table. These are the people who are keeping this country going and they are the people that we and the Government need to support. We need to see progress on reforming parental leave entitlements for working families. Ireland is very much out of step with the rest of Europe when we look at the duration of leave on offer and the rate of payment that obtains. This is a big issue for new dads in particular. Unfortunately, new dads are only entitled to two weeks' paid paternity leave, for which the rate is €299. The latter is not enough to support a family. That is why dads cannot spend time supporting their partners in those key early weeks and months. I raised this issue recently with the Minister for children regarding a mother who could not cope due to having a Caesarean section and needing extra support at home. The Government must take the first step in reforming parental leave entitlements by extending paid paternity leave for new dads and work towards introducing a pay-related payment that actually supports workers to spend more time with their child. Recently in the House, the Minister for children indicated the Department of Social Protection is working on this. These reforms must also include supporting lone parents who cannot access the same amount of leave as two-parent families. Lone parents should be entitled to the same leave because the care needs of a child do not change regardless of whether there is one parent or two in the home. I cannot let this opportunity go without raising with the Minister the need to increase the age threshold for domiciliary care allowance from 16 to 18 years of age. The Minister is very familiar with the number of times I have raised this with him. I know it is something he has committed to consider. I hope he will consider it in the context of the upcoming budget. I am also concerned about the number of older people who have been in contact with my office and who are struggling with their energy bills. This issue has been raised a number of times already. I refer in particular to older people who live alone. This is a massive issue for my office. The Government must look at increasing welfare payments for older people, starting with increasing the fuel allowance, extending the season and increasing the household benefits package. I look forward to continuing the debate on the merits of the Bill as it progresses through the House. As already flagged, there are a number of critical issues that must be clarified by the Government.

I rise to support the Social Welfare, Civil Registration and Charities (Amendment) Bill 2026. As the Chair of the Joint Committee on Social Protection, Rural and Community Development, I had the opportunity to see at first hand the detailed work that went into the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. The committee considered the general scheme of the Bill on three separate occasions. We heard from officials in the relevant Departments and, importantly, we also heard from a wide range of stakeholders and experts, including the Data Protection Commission, the UCD Centre for Digital Policy, Age Action, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and Digital Rights Ireland. This engagement was extremely valuable. The committee submitted its pre-legislative scrutiny report to the Minister for Social Protection on 2 July. The report contains 24 recommendations covering areas such as digital public services, the public services card and the operation of the social welfare appeals office. I acknowledge the work of committee members in producing the report and I welcome the fact that the recommendations will be considered on Committee Stage. At its heart, the Bill seeks to modernise and improve a number of important areas of public administration. There are a number of technical amendments to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, including with regard to outdated references and formally repealing the pre-retirement allowance scheme, which closed to new entrants almost 20 years ago. There are also important changes proposed in relation to the public services card. I particularly welcome the proposal that a person can, at their own discretion, use their public services card as a form of identification with a non-specified body such as a credit union, a bank or a utility provider. There is also provision for a person's date of birth to be included on their public services card where they request this, allowing the card to be used as a means of verifying their age. However, these changes also underline the importance of getting privacy, data protection and individual choice right. The committee's engagement with the Data Protection Commission, digital policy experts and civil liberty organisations was particularly important in this regard. Digitalisation can make public services easier and more accessible but it must always be accompanied by strong safeguards. People should have confidence that their personal information is being handled properly and that they retain appropriate control over how their identification is used. I also welcome the amendments designed to improve the operation of the social welfare appeals office. For people who are depending on a social welfare payment an appeal is not simply an administrative matter. It can have a very real impact on their ability to meet everyday household costs. An appeals system must, therefore, be fair, accessible and efficient. I welcome the efforts made to improve its operation. The amendments to the Civil Registration Act are important. The Bill will make a number of practical changes to improve the functionality of the General Register Office, including provisions relating to the registration and reregistration of births, notification of deaths and the information required when registering a birth online. I particularly welcome the provision enabling Tusla to register or reregister the birth of a child with the father's details on foot of a court order. There are also important provisions for people who have been affected by incorrect or illegal birth registration, including changes in terminology in the legislation. These are very sensitive issues that affect people's identity, family history and personal lives. It is important that our legislation reflects this reality and provides an appropriate framework for dealing with these cases. I welcome the amendments to the Charities Act 2009. The charitable and community sector plays an enormous role in our communities across Ireland. From large national organisations to small local community groups, charities provide services, supports and opportunities that make a real difference to people's lives. The proposed changes relating to the Charities Appeal Tribunal, including the provision for a quorum, the nomination of a deputy chairperson and the protections relating to witnesses, are important in ensuring this tribunal can operate effectively. A properly functioning regulatory appeals framework is essential to maintaining confidence in the charity sector. This Bill does not make one major change. Rather, it makes a collection of important amendments across social welfare, civil registration and the charities sector. That does not make it any less important. Good legislation also means keeping our existing laws up to date, removing provisions that are no longer relevant, improving administration processes and ensuring our public bodies can operate effectively. I believe the Bill makes progress on all of these fronts. I reiterate that the work undertaken by the joint committee has provided an important opportunity to examine these proposals in detail. The 24 recommendations contained in our report should continue to be considered carefully as the Bill progresses. Where improvements can be made, we should make them. Where stronger safeguards are required, we should put them in place. Where legislation can make people's interaction with the State simpler, fairer and more efficient, we should try to facilitate that. For the reasons outlined, I am happy to support the Social Welfare, Civil Registration and Charities (Amendment) Bill 2026. I look forward to its further consideration.

I thank all of the Deputies for their contributions, particularly those who serve on the joint committee. I thank Deputy O'Shea for chairing it and I thank the clerk and the team. I will respond to a number of the issues raised; a number of specific issues were also raised, about which I will engage with Deputies also. Over the years the Department has been asked why the PSC, which is State issued, cannot be used by a cardholder to prove identity if they wish to do so. Other Government documents, such as a passport or a driving licence, can be issued in this manner. This is why we are introducing the Bill; it is to give people the choice, if they wish, to use the PSC for this purpose. The public services card is a token that is issued on the completion of a safe registration process. It is the evidence of a substantial level of assurance of a person's identity. One of the benefits of the public services card is that it is available free of charge. There is no fee associated with getting or renewing a PSC. I am very mindful of the cost a person incurs when they need a passport or driving licence or need to renew either. We receive queries from cardholders and voluntary bodies, as well as from many people in this House, asking why it is not possible to use a PSC to verify a person's identity if that person chooses to do so. We get about 100 queries a month over the phone from individuals and various bodies asking if the PSC can be used as proof of identity. This does not include the informal queries that come through the Department's network. Cardholders who have expressed a wish to use their PSC to verify their identity for purposes such as opening a bank or credit union account or for utility contract purposes, often cannot afford another form of identity. To date, it has been an offence for those bodies to accept a PSC. These changes are to deal totally and purely with those situations where people want to use their PSC for identity purposes in the circumstances referred to. Clearly, it is for those individuals themselves to use it for themselves. The processing of personal data, including sensitive personal data, is already subject to clearly specified safeguards under the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, as amended, and in accordance with the GDPR. Additionally, my Department actively implements a range of oversight arrangements for the processing of all personal data held by the Department. The Department provides very clear information, including through our privacy statement, which is across publicly available information materials, and in communication to PSC cardholders. The proposed amendments do not alter these safeguards. They simply enable an individual to voluntarily use their PSC as proof of identity or age with non-specified bodies if they choose to do so. It remains the case that in law only specified bodies may request a PSC and non-specified bodies cannot request a PSC. In relation to the Data Protection Commission there are two inquiries into the processing of personal data in relation to the PSC. One has been completed and the other is before the courts, so I will not refer to it at this point. In its August 2019 decision, the Data Protection Commission found that the Department could only authenticate the identity of and issue a PSC to its own customers and not to anyone who wanted a PSC to transact with other public bodies. Subsequently, the commission accepted in December 2021 that the Department could continue to process personal data to authenticate the identity of and issue a PSC to any person who requested one and not just the customers of the Department of Social Protection. It remains the case, therefore, that we await the outcome of the other court case. I have listened carefully to the concerns raised today in relation to the PSC, but I again emphasise that today's amendment is a voluntary one that relates with giving people the capacity to use this card in respect of bodies currently not allowed to accept it. A couple of issues came up in relation to some specific things. Deputy Hayes raised the issue of data repositories and making them interoperable with other Departments. There are no proposals under this Bill to create any new interoperability arrangements beyond those that already exist in legislation. Again, as per the existing arrangements, the sharing and verification of PSC data are governed by the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, as amended. There are no plans to provide access to PSC data to non-public entities. Any sharing of PSC data is governed by legislation and is restricted to the bodies authorised in law. Turning to the other provisions of the Bill, in relation to social welfare appeals I acknowledge the three Deputies here in the House. I am sure other Deputies raised queries as well, but the three social protection spokespersons, Deputies O'Reilly, Wall and O'Shea have constantly raised the issue of appeals with me. We are very focused on appeals. In relation to Deputy Ward's remarks on domiciliary care allowance appeals, we are very focused on that and we are dealing with it. It is often the case, however, that the appeal is not the same and extra information is provided. I want to get to a situation where we get clarity on what information is needed in the first place. We have put a particular focus on domiciliary care allowance appeals, and I thank the appeals officers. Turning to Deputy Wall's question, at the end of June 2026, the average processing time for social welfare appeals was 12 weeks. The average processing time for social welfare appeals in 2025 was 21.2 weeks. We will be dealing with a parliamentary question on this issue from Deputy O'Reilly on Thursday. Ahead of that, I will seek to get the breakdown of the schemes in order that we can identify any particular challenges. There should not be a situation where it takes a year. I am happy to engage with the Deputy around that issue. I thank the chief appeals officer and her team. They are continuing to monitor processing times, and we are making every effort to reduce the time taken to process an appeal. We will be able to engage on this issue more during parliamentary questions on Thursday. In relation to the issues around the charities legislation, no change in policy proposed as part of these amendments. Deputy Devlin raised this issue. The Charities (Amendment) Act 2024 revised and updated the existing charity legislation. When it is fully commenced, it will improve the ability of the Charities Regulator to conduct its statutory functions and to provide greater transparency, clarity and fairness in terms of the regulation of charities. This is something that the Minister of State, Deputy Buttimer, as the line Minister of State with responsibility in this area, has engaged on in the context of the delays involving charitable bodies and the Charities Regulator. We are focused on that. I assure Deputy Wall and all other Deputies that in the midst of the budget negotiations, we are very focused on child poverty. I secured a specific €320 million child poverty package for budget 2026. We are working on budget 2027. We worked yesterday on the school meals programme, which is a major initiative on the child poverty side. The Department of Social Protection is involved in the school meals programme in order to bring that element to people. I have tried to deal with as many of the issues as possible. I look forward to the engagement on Committee Stage. I thank the officials from the three Departments who worked on the Bill.