Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

It is with very good news because, as Deputy Bannon knows, decisions made in the Department are made by deciding officers who act absolutely independently of me and if one is not happy with a decision one goes to a independent appeals office, so the allegation that in some way a directive on the application of the rules went from the top of the Department is utter nonsense and I assure the Deputy of that.

If this country could not borrow money on international markets, the effect on the social welfare budget, which is 38% of the current spend, would be absolutely devastating. The Government is focused on ensuring that we can borrow money to provide the top-class services we do through our social welfare system.

I will now deal with the question on people transferring from carer's benefit to carer's allowance and I think Deputy Bannon knows how the schemes work. Carer's benefit was introduced in October 2000. It is a social contribution payment made to people who have left the workforce to look after somebody in need of full-time care and attention.

To qualify for carer's benefit and carer's allowance, the person being cared for, namely, the caree, must require full-time care and attention. A decision on medical eligibility is made based on the medical evidence supplied at the time of the relevant application. A decision on medical eligibility would have been made at the time of an application for carer's benefit based on the medical evidence supplied. When a person is no longer eligible for carer's benefit and subsequently applies for carer's allowance in respect of the same care recipient, a new application must be submitted. The Department's medical assessor gives an opinion, based on the latest medical information supplied. In a small number of cases, the assessor will advise that the caree no longer requires full-time care and attention.

It is important to remember that the maximum time a person may receive carer's benefit is two years. However, this may be spread out over a longer period with episodes of employment in between. The medical circumstances can change over time.

There is no difference in the medical eligibility criteria between the two schemes. The medical evidence supplied by the claimant in support of the initial application for carer's benefit and the subsequent application for carer's allowance may differ and it is upon this medical evidence that the medical assessor's opinion is based.

Practical experience as a constituency politician will tell one that often the reason an appeal succeeds is because the evidence given at the appeal is far more substantial than the evidence in the initial application, and we all know this. A very small number of decisions, approximately 2%, are appealed so we are discussing 48% of 2%, which is 1%. Removing the number of cases where if the information provided on appeal had been provided originally they would have succeeded leaves a very small number of social welfare applications where the basic decision is overturned by the appeals office.

Claims for either carer's benefit or carer's allowance may be reviewed by the Department at any time to establish continuing eligibility and a claimant may be requested to furnish up to date medical evidence. When applicants are refused carer's allowance on medical grounds they are notified of this decision, the reasons for it and their right of review or appeal to the social welfare appeals office. I understand that there were a total of 78 cases in the year June 2009 to May 2010 which were refused carer's allowance on medical grounds following a carer's benefit claim. Most of the schemes administered by the Department of Social Protection, including carer's benefit and carer's allowance, have qualifying conditions established by legislation. There is no question of valid claims being deliberately withheld to meet cost-cutting targets. While the economic situation is difficult, any changes to the qualifying conditions for carer's benefit and carer's allowance would require legislation and would only be introduced as part of the normal budgetary process.

If one takes the figure of 80, or even 100, at an average of €10,000 a year, that would work out at approximately €1 million. When one considers that my Department spends €200,000 a minute, that is the equivalent of a five-minute spend. I assure Deputy Bannon that the numbers issues in my Department far exceed that and if anyone thinks there is some policy other than objectively examining every file on its merits, they are wrong.

Deputy Bannon also raised the issue of the habitual residency claim. I hear all this talk about Irish citizens but under EU law it would be illegal for us to differentiate between a Polish, French, British or Irish citizen or any citizen of any other part of the EU in terms of habitual residency, and that is the nub of the issue. In making decisions on habitual residency, the fact that they are Irish as opposed to any other nationality cannot legally be taken into account. As Deputy Bannon will be aware, the position is that people must have their centre of interest within this country. I will give Deputy Bannon the figures, if the Acting Chairman allows me. I am trying to be helpful to the Deputy.

See this speech in context