Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

As for amendment No. 18, in some ways this is similar to the argument I made in respect of amendment No. 13. This is slightly more peculiar because it deals with the proposals regarding habitual residence conditions. A positive change is being proposed in this Bill and I have already stated that quite a number of its measures are positive. However, it requires the departmental officials to make on an ongoing basis a determination as to whether somebody remains habitually resident. I understand the two-year rule is disappearing, as it should do, as required by European law. In this amendment, I am trying to encourage the Minister to allow the draft regulations come before a committee or the Dáil or whichever, before signing off on them. This would enable Members to try to ensure the regulations would stand up to proper testing. In this case, the Minister will produce the regulations and while I do not propose in this amendment that they should go before the Oireachtas committee, in line with my other amendment this is what the intention would be.

At the very least, however, regulations should set out how the Department intends to control this change and how it intends to verify that a series of different decisions are not being made in different parts of the country with regard to habitual residence. This issue has caused problems for a number of people who have approached me. In such cases, an official has made the wrong determination, even though from my experience, it was quite clear the person in question would have qualified for social protection benefits in the past. This meant the people concerned were obliged to appeal or, if they approached me sufficiently early, to get a review. In fairness, the relevant officials, be they from the Department or the Social Welfare Appeals Office, have in most cases in which it was quite clear that somebody qualified overturned the original decision. It is a complicated area and that is why, if it is set out quite clearly in regulations, there would not be any mistakes from either the officials or from those Members who are looking in. I acknowledge that sometimes, Members also get it wrong and, having looked at a case, can give advice to somebody that he or she is deserving of a social welfare payment but sometimes they do not see the full picture. However, were the regulations set out as clearly as I would hope, it would be easier in respect of what is a very complicated aspect of qualification for social welfare payments.

See this speech in context