Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 166: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on concerns expressed by social welfare appeals officers regarding the number of migrant workers from EU member states being denied welfare on the grounds that they are not habitually resident here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31742/06]

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 190: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on the finding made by the social welfare appeals office in its annual report regarding inconsistencies in the decision making process over whether to grant or deny welfare benefits to migrant workers. [31788/06]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 166 and 190 together.

The requirement to be habitually resident in Ireland was introduced as a qualifying condition for child benefit and social assistance schemes with effect from 1st May 2004.

The basis for the restriction contained in the rules is the applicant's habitual residence. 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.

The Social Welfare Appeals Office Annual Report 2005 refers to earlier concerns as to the application of the habitual residence condition to certain categories of migrant workers who are nationals of the EEA and the possible conflict with relevant EU Legislation. The report notes, however, that EU legislation introduced in 1995 has alleviated their concerns and reduced the number of cases coming to appeal.

The report also drew attention to the need for adequate safeguards to ensure consistency in the decision making process for those cases and referred in particular to instances of inconsistency between decisions in the different schemes such as unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare allowance.

The Supplementary Welfare Allowance (SWA) scheme is administered by the Community Welfare Division of the Health Service Executive (HSE) on behalf of my Department. For schemes administered directly by my Department, straightforward decisions on habitual residence are dealt with at my Department's local offices and relevant headquarters offices while complex cases and cases where there is a doubt are dealt with in specialised units. 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 1 May 2004 to 30 September 2006, the number of habitual residence cases decided in specialist units was 41,571. The total number of cases deemed not habitually resident was 9,841 (24%). The number of appeals against HRC decisions determined by the Social Welfare Appeals Office for the period 1 May 2004 to end March 2006 was 832, of which the Deciding Officer's decision was upheld in 514 cases and the decision was overturned in 312 cases.

A review and ongoing contact with the HSE have confirmed that the approach taken by the HSE in relation to determination of HRC is consistent with the approach taken in my Department. The outcome of the review suggests that variances in decisions made were as a result of the provision of additional information being notified more readily to the CWO than to the Department's Specialist Unit at time of claim.

I have noted the findings as contained in the Annual Report. The fact that only a small percentage of rejected cases are brought to appeal and the fact that the majority of those appeals are not allowed suggests that the habitual residence condition is being operated in a careful manner, while at the same time ensuring that people whose cases are appropriate to the system have access to it when they need it.