Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not propose to accept this amendment. The five factors which determine habitual residence are already laid down in subsection 246(4) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, as amended by section 30 of the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2007, as follows:

...a deciding officer or the Executive, when determining whether a person is habitually resident in the State, shall take into consideration all the circumstances of the case including, in particular, the following:(a) the length and continuity of residence in the State or in any other particular country;
(b) the length and purpose of any absence from the State;
(c) the nature and pattern of the person’s employment;
(d) the person’s main centre of interest; and
(e) the future intentions of the person concerned as they appear from all the circumstances.

This is not an exhaustive list and the underlying principle is to establish where the person's centre of interest lies, as demonstrated from an assessment of all the facts. These five factors are derived from EU legislation, namely, Article 11 of Regulation 987/2009, and from European Court of Justice jurisprudence, including the 1997 Swaddling case and the Knock case, C-102/91, among others.
My Department has produced extensive guidelines on the habitual residence condition, which are freely available to all staff members and the public. These guidelines are regularly updated to take account of changing circumstances and changes in domestic and EU jurisprudence. Where a person is dissatisfied with a deciding officer or designated person's decision in regard to the HRC, he or she may seek a review of that determination and-or submit an appeal to the social welfare appeals office. There is no charge for requesting a review or making an appeal.
As the elements for the decision-making process are already laid down in primary legislation and there are adequate means of redress through the review appeal procedures, it is unnecessary to provide secondary legislation as proposed in the Deputy's amendment. While I understand the point the Deputy is raising, I am satisfied that we have an extensive set of indicators in regard to HRC. We also have an extensive review and appeals procedure, which many other jurisdictions do not have to the same extent.