Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 530: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason the parents of a single person living at home are subject to a means test when their child makes an application for unemployment assistance; his views on whether it is unfair to do so; if he will change this rule in any circumstance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28611/05]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

For unemployment assistance purposes, the assessment of means for non-householders resident in the parental home has always taken into account the yearly value of any benefit and privilege enjoyed by him or her by virtue of residing with a parent or step-parent. In practice, this is taken to mean the value of free board and lodging to a claimant and such value is ascribed having regard to the level of parental income.

The Commission on Social Welfare, 1986, examined the then operation of the benefit and privilege arrangements. The commission recommended the abolition of the concept of benefit and privilege for those aged 25 years and over. In reaching this conclusion, the commission stated: The reason for this cut-off point, 25, is that by that age young adults would normally have become financially independent of the parental home. The minority, however, unable to obtain employment by that age or those who become unemployed at a later age should also be entitled to financial independence and it can be argued that such persons should, therefore, be entitled to a payment in their own right, irrespective of parental means. Payment at the full basic rate is appropriate in such cases.

In budget 2003, the assessment of benefit and privilege for UA claimants aged 29 years and over was abolished. Budget 2004 abolished the assessment for those aged 27 and 28 years of age. In budget 2005, I further reduced the age above which the assessment of benefit and privilege does not apply to 26 years of age. Any further change in these arrangements would fall to be considered in a budgetary context.

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 531: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will increase the earnings threshold for the dependants of old age pensioners, contributory and non-contributory, from between €88.88 and €220.00 gross earnings per week to a range that is more reflective of the increase in the cost of living since this figure was last revised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28763/05]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Across the majority of social welfare payments, entitlement to an increase for a qualified adult is based, inter alia, on the spouse or partner's income. An increase at the maximum rate is payable where the spouse or partner's income is €88.88 per week or less, with a reduced, or tapered rate payable where this income is between €88.88 and €220. This lower threshold of €88.88 was last increased in budget 2000 while the upper threshold has been increased in each successive budget since then, from €171.41, £135, in 2000 to €220 in budget 2005.

Since this Government came into office, a number of changes to these tapered arrangements have been introduced with a view to ensuring that the impact of increases in earnings are not negated for families where the spouse is the sole earner and is in low-paid employment. First, the range of income over which the IQA is withdrawn has been progressively extended. Second, provision was made for the deferral of the loss of half the child dependant allowance until the earnings of the spouse or partner exceeds the upper bound of the income range. Third, the IQA weekly rates have been increased annually in each budget package.

One of the key objectives of the 2005 social welfare budget package was to protect and enhance the real value of all rates of payment. In this context, budget 2005 provided for increases in the main personal rates of weekly payments ranging from 8.4% to 13.1%.

The main IQA rates were also increased by the same percentages thereby ensuring that they did not fall as a proportion of the associated personal rate. Thus, since the year 2000 the rate of IQA payable with old age, contributory, pension has increased by 56.3%, €43.06, while the consumer price index has risen by 18.8%. Similarly, since 1995, the rate of IQA has increased by 95.7%, €58.43, while the consumer price index has risen by 34.6%. This has given real increases of 31.6% and 45.4% respectively.

Any change in the current arrangements relating to entitlement to an increase for a qualified adult would have to be considered in a budgetary context and in the light of available resources.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 532: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will extend the benefits of the Class S PRSI contributions to enable those contributing to receive assistance such as disability benefit or invalidity pension during an illness; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28766/05]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The social insurance system in Ireland is generally based on compulsory paid PRSI contributions on which entitlement to a range of contingency-based payments are established. Workers are insured under the Social Welfare Acts as either employed or self-employed contributors. Employees and their employers generally pay contributions at PRSI Class A, whereas self-employed workers generally pay Class S contributions. The class and number of contributions paid determines the range of benefits and pensions towards which contributors can build up entitlement.

The range of benefits to which different groups of workers may establish entitlement reflects the risks associated with the nature of their work and this is reflected in the rate of contributions payable. Self-employed individuals pay Class S contributions at a rate of 3% and are potentially eligible to a narrower range of benefits than employees who, together with their employers, are potentially liable for a total contribution of 14.05% under PRSI Class A. Class S contributors are entitled to the following payments: widow's or widower's contributory pension; orphan's contributory allowance; old age contributory pension; maternity benefit; adoptive benefit, and bereavement grant.

When Class S was introduced for self-employed persons in 1988, coverage for both short-term insurance-based payments such as disability benefit and for illness was excluded on the grounds that it would prove administratively and legally complex and would be costly to implement.

There are no immediate plans to extend short-term income support benefits or invalidity pensions to self-employed persons. Such an extension would not only necessitate a significant increase in the rate of Class S contribution to fund it but also require considerable changes to existing administration and control procedures. Self-employed workers who do not qualify for an insurance-based benefit may claim supplementary welfare allowance, which is subject to a means test.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 533: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if the habitual residency regulation is legal; the contact which has been made by the EU with his Department in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29097/05]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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. The basis for the restriction is the applicant's habitual residence. It is not based on citizenship, nationality, immigration status or any other factor. The effect is that a person whose habitual residence is elsewhere is not paid certain social welfare payments on arrival in Ireland.

The EU Commission wrote to the Government on 22 December 2004 raising a number of issues concerning its compliance with EU law in respect of workers and their families. Officials of my Department have engaged in discussion with the EU Commission officials, clarifying the operation of the condition and addressing the issues raised. In particular, it was pointed out that the question of what is a person's habitual residence is decided in accordance with the criteria set out in European Court of Justice case law.

These are: the length and continuity of residence in a particular country, length and purpose of absence from Ireland, nature and pattern of the employment, applicant's main centre of interest, future intention of applicant concerned as it appears from all the circumstances.

In addition, full consideration is given in the decision making process to the requirements of EU Regulation 1408/71 which coordinates the social security rights of people who move within the EU. A response by the Commission to the points made is still awaited. It is expected that the Commission's examination of the matter will be concluded to the satisfaction of both parties by the end of this year.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 534: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of persons who have been refused payments due to the habitual residency condition since its introduction on 1 May 2004, giving details for each social welfare payment type; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29098/05]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

From 1 May 2004 the requirement to be habitually resident in Ireland was introduced as a qualifying condition for certain social assistance schemes including child benefit. The effect of the condition is that a person whose habitual residence is elsewhere is not paid certain social welfare payments on arrival in Ireland. The question of what is a person's habitual residence is decided in accordance with European Court of Justice case law, which sets out the grounds for assessing individual claims.

Each case received for a determination on the habitual residence condition is dealt with in its own right and a decision is based on the individual circumstances of each case. Any applicant who disagrees with the decision of a deciding officer has the right to appeal to the Social Welfare Appeals Office.

For the period from 1 May 2004 to 13 October 2005, the number of cases decided is 22,810, of which 5630, 25%, were disallowed. Persons who are not habitually resident at the time of application for one of the specified payments may become habitually resident at a later date and may re-apply. The following table gives a breakdown of the number of cases disallowed by scheme type.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 535: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the way in which the habitual residency clause affects Irish citizens born in this country who had been living in England; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29099/05]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

The basis for the restriction in the new rules is the applicant's habitual residence. The restriction is not based on citizenship, nationality, immigration status or any other factor. The question of what is a person's "habitual residence" is decided in accordance with European Court of Justice case law, which sets out the grounds for assessing individual claims.

Each case received for a determination on the habitual residence condition is dealt with in its own right and a decision is based on application of the guidelines to the individual circumstances of each case. A person who has supplied proof of residence in the common travel area for a period of two years or more and then moves to Ireland with the intention of settling here will satisfy the habitual residence condition. The common travel area includes Ireland, Great Britain, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 536: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will report on the implementation by his Department of the habitual residence condition; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29103/05]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

A central unit was set up to monitor the implementation of the habitual residence condition. An important function of the central unit is to make decisions on complex cases. The unit also provides advice and support, on an ongoing basis, to staff in social welfare offices and scheme areas. This includes circulation of guidelines and updates on the administration of the scheme as appropriate.

Decisions to the effect that applicants satisfy the habitual residence condition are made in the majority of cases at claim acceptance stage by deciding officers at local level throughout the country. Since 1 August 2005, decisions on child benefit cases are being dealt with in child benefit section in Letterkenny. At present decisions on complex cases for other scheme types are being made in the central unit.

The main policy and administrative developments to date have included the drafting of guidelines, overseen by the Department's decisions advisory office, and the posting of these guidelines on the Department's website and on the Department's internal computer network for access by staff.

Administrative guidelines on the operation of the condition have also been compiled and furnished to staff in social welfare offices, social welfare scheme areas and the community welfare service. Training has also been provided to 1,300 departmental staff. The habitual residence condition is being operated in a considered manner, to ensure that people whose cases are appropriate to the Irish social welfare system have access to the system when they need it. In the period from May 2004 to 13 October a total of 22,810 cases has been decided. Almost 75% of these cases were found to satisfy the habitual residence condition.

The operation of the habitual residence condition has been kept under review by officials of my Department since its introduction. The purpose of the review is to assess the impact of the condition on different categories of claimants, the organisational arrangements and the level of service provided to customers, to identify opportunities for improvements in the administration of the scheme and identify emerging policy issues and consider how these should be addressed.

Account is being taken of the views received from various groups and organisations who have an interest in the area. I expect to be in a position to draw conclusions from the review by the end of the year.

Trevor Sargent (Dublin North, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 537: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will report on the implementation of Regulation 647/2005 and the implications for his Department of the European Court of Justice case 215/99 Jauch and ECJ case C — 160/96 Molenaar; if he will identify the social welfare benefits here which are regarded in EU law as being family benefits; the consequences of that classification for claimants; if he will identify the social welfare benefits which are classified in EU law as being other than family benefits; the consequences of that classification for claimants; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29104/05]

Séamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 came into force on 5 May 2005. The main element of the proposal concerns amendments to Article 4(2a) and Annex IIa of EEC Regulation 1408/71, details regarding special non-contributory cash benefits, to take account of new benefits of this type in national legislation and of developments in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) regarding the classification of such benefits.

Annex IIa of Regulation 1408/71 contains a list of special non-contributory benefits granted by member states to people exclusively within the territory of the member state in which they reside. In other words, they cannot be exported. The benefits in the annex were entered by each member state on the basis that they had characteristics of both social insurance and social assistance typically means tested payments.

The European Court has ruled, Case C-215/99 Jauch and Case C-160/96 Molenaar, that for a benefit to be special it must be clear that it is neither a conventional social insurance nor a social assistance scheme; and have as its prime objective to react to the financial need of the persons concerned and guarantee them a minimum subsistence income, namely, it should be aimed at preventing poverty; or be exclusively designed to provide specific support for disabled people.

In light of case law of the Court, the Commission considered it essential to review the list for each member state in order to ascertain whether the benefits listed meet the special and non-contributory criteria laid down by the Court. Annex IIa as a consequence has been amended to include only those benefits which satisfy the new definition as outlined by the Court, and reflected in Article 4(2a). Member states who wished to retain entries in Annex IIa were required to justify them by reference to the new definition.

Ireland accepted that the eight entries listed in Annex IIa of Regulation 1408/71 would have to be removed in the light of the jurisprudence. Four of these entries come within the remit of the Department of Health and Children, and are: infectious diseases maintenance allowance, domiciliary care allowance, blind welfare allowance, and disabled person's rehabilitation allowance.

Regarding the benefits outlined the Council decided that they should properly be reclassified as sickness benefits in cash, and should be coordinated by the rules relating to sickness benefits set out in Regulation 1408/71 which provides for export of benefits. In addition, and having regard to the jurisprudence of the Court, it was decided that carer's benefit, which is an insurance based payment, is properly classified a sickness benefit in cash within the meaning of Regulation 1408/71. This means that claimants of this benefit can rely to the extent necessary on periods of insurance completed in another member state in order to meet the PRSI contribution conditions. It also means that the benefit can be paid outside the State.

The remaining four entries removed from Annex IIa come within the remit of the Department of Social and Family Affairs, and are as follows: one parent family payment, family income supplement, orphan's non-contributory allowance, and carer's allowance Regarding the first three benefits outlined, the Council decided they should be coordinated as family benefits resulting in these benefits being exportable from Ireland in certain circumstances. Child benefit is already being coordinated as family benefit. In respect of carer's allowance it was agreed this benefit falls outside the scope of Regulation 1408/71 and thus, would continue to be paid only to recipients while resident in Ireland.

Based on what I have said, the Irish entries that are maintained in Annex IIa with effect from 5 May 2005 are: unemployment assistance; old age and blind non-contributory pension; widow's and widower's non-contributory pension; disability allowance; and mobility allowance While certain benefits are no longer listed in Annex IIa it does not mean that in all cases the benefits would be exported without restriction. For instance, child benefit as a family benefit is coordinated so that in the case, for example, of a family living in Northern Ireland with one parent working in the South, the Department of Social and Family Affairs is responsible for paying family benefits by virtue of the person's employment. If family benefits in Northern Ireland were higher that State would pay a supplement representing the difference in the two benefits. This ensures that the family gets the benefit of the highest rates of family benefits payable by the state of employment and the state of residence.