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

Question 138: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason an Irish born citizen who has returned from America to care for their mother has been refused the carer's allowance under the habitual residence condition even though the person is an Irish resident; if the Department is legal in its decision in view of the fact that this person is an Irish citizen who had lived here until they moved away and has come home to look after their mother. [37376/05]

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

As detailed in the reply to a parliamentary question, reference number 36066/05, on 23 November 2005, the person concerned applied for carer's allowance in respect of two carers on 4 October 2005. The principal conditions for receipt of the allowance are that full time care and attention is required and being provided and that the means test that applies is satisfied. Additionally, the requirement to be habitually resident in Ireland was introduced as a qualifying condition for certain social assistance schemes including carer's allowance with effect from 1 May 2004. All applicants, regardless of nationality, are required to be habitually resident in the State in order to qualify for carer's allowance. The basis for the restriction contained in the new rules is the applicant's habitual residence. The restriction is not based on citizenship, nationality, immigration status or any other factor.

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 particular 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. Having examined all the facts in the case raised by the Deputy, a deciding officer decided that the person does not satisfy the habitual residence condition on the grounds that she has not been continuously resident in the State or in the common travel area for the last two years. Furthermore, it is not clear that she intends to reside in the State permanently from now on and she has maintained substantial links abroad by retaining property in the USA. She was notified of this decision, the reason for it and the right to an appeal on 21 November 2005. Under social welfare legislation, decisions on claims must be made by deciding officers and appeals officers. These officers are statutorily appointed and I have no role in making such decisions.