Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 57: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his plans to alter the habitual residency condition as applied to the child benefit payment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32582/07]

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Child benefit may be paid in respect of every child under the age of 16 who is ordinarily resident in the State. Payment can be extended to the 19th birthday if the child is in education or incapable of self-support. The benefit is paid to the qualified person with whom the child resides and the qualified person must satisfy the habitual residence condition.

The requirement to be habitually resident in Ireland was introduced as a qualifying condition for certain social assistance schemes and child benefit with effect from 1 May 2004. It was introduced in the context of the Government's decision to open the Irish labour market to workers from the ten new EU member states, without the transitional limitations that were imposed at that time by most of the other member states. The effect of the condition is that a person whose habitual residence is elsewhere would not normally be entitled to social welfare assistance or child benefit payments on arrival in Ireland.

EU regulations provide that EEA nationals who are migrant workers, that is, those who are employed or self-employed in this country, or who are receiving the jobseeker's benefit since being in employment here, are entitled to payment of family benefit in respect of their families, including those who reside in another member state. Under these regulations, the family members are treated as if they are habitually resident in Ireland for the purpose of child benefit.

A survey was done by my Department on new child benefit claims decided between January and the end of August 2007, in which period a total of 28,542 claims was decided. Of these 3,430, or 12%, required particular examination of the habitual residence condition. Some 90% of these satisfied the condition and only 341, or 10%, were refused owing to its not being satisfied. In effect, just over 1% of the total number of new child benefit claims failed to satisfy the habitual residence condition. Those who are refused child benefit are mainly people whose claim to asylum has not yet been decided, others who have not obtained a work permit or people who have had only a minimal or no attachment to the workforce since coming to Ireland. In the case of families in the asylum process, direct provision, funded by the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform, is available, ensuring that the rights and welfare of the children are protected.

I am satisfied the habitual residence condition is achieving its intended purpose, allowing access to our social welfare schemes to persons who are genuinely and lawfully making Ireland their habitual residence while preventing unwarranted access by persons who have little or no connection with the State.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why does the Minister believe it is achieving the purpose for which it was intended given, as he admitted in his reply, that the reason it was brought in was EU enlargement? Excluding people from those countries from receiving the child benefit payment was found to be contrary to EU law. Now those people are automatically included. Only approximately 3,000 children of asylum seekers are affected by this.

Has the Department received any legal advice on Ireland's position in respect of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which we signed up in 1992, and are there any contradictions, as I believe there are, in regard to articles 3 and 26 which guarantee the right of every child to benefit from social security? Does the Minister believe it is appropriate that children living in direct provision are expected to survive — I accept their food and shelter is paid for — on €9.60 per week?

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Prior to the introduction of the habitual residence condition in 2004, full examination was given by my Department to the question of whether it was consistent with a number of international conventions to which Ireland was party, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The convention allows national legislation to prescribe the manner of provision of that benefit. The benefit does not have to be a cash payment. Benefit-in-kind may equally satisfy the requirement. Therefore, direct provision is made in the case of persons in the asylum process. That provision meets the obligations of the convention and Ireland is not obliged to pay child benefit in addition to this. The outcome of this examination was, therefore, that the habitual residence condition was not incompatible with the provisions of the convention.

We had a very good debate in the Seanad on this subject in the past couple of weeks. I made the point, which I reiterate, that because we have a direct provision system, funded by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to look after the families and children, this was accepted under international law as fully meeting the obligations of the convention. It is wrong to suggest people are being asked to survive on the minimalist cash payment. The State is more than meeting its obligations.

We must be careful because we do not want to open potential floodgates. If there was no restriction, many more people would try to come to this country to access the welfare system, which is quite generous and is a good one by any international standards. Although we cater for almost all people, particularly our colleagues in the European Union, having the habitual residence condition is clearly of benefit.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister would have to admit that one would want to have many children to make child benefit a pull factor. Does he accept the amount of money given to these children each week deprives them of basic necessities? Surveys have been done on this. Children have been unable to get school uniforms and school shoes, to participate in trips with their classmates and to get proper school lunches because of the amount of money they get under direct provision. Has the Department accurate figures on the number involved?

Is the Minister aware of his chief appeals officer's criticism of the long delays in dealing with asylum appeals? What is his view on the fact that some people, who have faced particularly long delays, have been able to avail of child benefit?

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I gave the Deputy detailed information in my reply. As I said, from January to August 2007, a total of 28,542 claims were decided. Of these, 3,430 required particular examination of the habitual residence condition. Some 90% of these satisfied the condition and only 341 were refused as the condition was not satisfied.

I repeat we provide direct provision. I would be astonished if certain children were excluded under the school meals programme where that is provided. I have no knowledge of that happening and I suspect it is not. All children in schools where meals are provided can avail of them.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are not provided in every school.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is about a balance. It is not only about a few people, as the Deputy rightly said. The generosity and flexibility in the system is indicative of the Irish people and the amount of resources we have put into this area. It would be wrong to be irresponsible and to attach no conditions for people coming to this country to access what is a very generous social welfare system.