Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I already gave the figures which show an increase in the numbers being awarded carer’s allowance. The figures do not bear out Deputy O’Dea’s assertion the Department is operating the scheme in a different fashion.

There appears to be a misconception that section 4 is in some way shifting the burden of proof from the Department to the claimant and that a negative presumption is being introduced that a person is not entitled to the allowance. I am aware that Deputy O’Dea made such a comment on Committee Stage and FLAC has also stated this. There is no such negative presumption being introduced. It is always the case that the onus is on the claimant, whether for carer’s allowance or any other social welfare payment, to provide the necessary information in support of his or her application to prove eligibility. There is no change in this regard.

Deputy O’Dea has also argued that he not seen the word “unless” used in such legislative measures. The use of the unless clause is already found throughout the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 such as in sections 40, 44 and 45 for illness benefit, sections 62 and 67 for jobseeker’s benefit, section 141 for jobseeker’s allowance and section 128 for widow’s pension.

Deciding officers make no presumption as to the eligibility or otherwise of any claimant for any scheme. Each claim is made on merit and the information available to the deciding officer and in accordance with the statutory conditions for eligibility set out in the relevant legislation. The current legislative provision for the carer’s scheme states a relevant person shall be regarded as requiring full-time care and attention where he or she requires continual supervision and frequent assistance throughout the day in connection with normal bodily functions or continual supervision in order to avoid danger to himself or herself. The legal advice I have received indicates that this provision could be read as meaning a relevant person, as defined under section 179(4) of the principal Act, could be regarded as requiring full-time care and attention in other circumstances. In other words, the current definition is not an exhaustive one and, in essence, it is ambiguous.

For the avoidance of doubt, section 4 of Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2015 provides that a person will only be regarded as requiring full-time care and attention of the purpose of the carer’s scheme where he or she requires continual supervision and frequent assistance throughout the day in connection with normal bodily functions or continual supervision in order to avoid danger to himself or herself. In other words, the person will not be regarded as requiring full-time care and attention unless he or she satisfies those conditions.

These changes bring the legislation into line with how these schemes are actually operating since their inception. I refute any suggestion that these changes are being made to make it more difficult for persons to qualify for carer’s allowance.

See this speech in context