Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

58. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection further to Parliamentary Question Numbers 176 of 20 October 2015 and 52 of 4 November 2015, if she will revise the rule 1(4), Part 4 of Schedule 3 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 in order that parents who take career breaks for childcare purposes are not deemed to have voluntarily left employment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39908/15]

Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Rule 1(4), of Part 4 of Schedule 3 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 provides that the supplementary welfare allowance (SWA) means test includes the value of all income and the value of all property, of which the person has directly or indirectly deprived himself or herself, in order to qual­ify for the receipt of SWA.

In the case referred to in the earlier Parliamentary Question, the application for rent supplement was refused following the decision of an officer that the applicant had voluntarily deprived themselves of income. The applicant has been advised of their right to appeal this decision.

No amendments to this legislative provision are being considered at this time and any change would need to be considered in a budgetary context.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

59. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection her views on the issues raised in correspondence (details supplied); if the creation of a new category of non-dependent co-habitor has even been considered; if her Department has ever investigated the likely cost of a move towards individualisation of the social payments system; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [39909/15]

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The EEC Equality Directive 79/9 and the subsequent Supreme Court case (Hyland v Minister for Social Welfare, 1989) led to the change in treatment of non-married cohabiting couples in the social welfare code. The Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the total income a married couple received in social welfare benefits to be less than the couple would have received if they were cohabiting. Accordingly, couples who are married and cohabiting are treated identically to couples who are cohabiting but not married for social welfare purposes since the Social Welfare Act No 2, 1989. There are no plans to change this.

I am unclear what the Deputy has in mind when he refers to the individualisation of the social payments system. If the Deputy means that one or both members of a couple who are cohabiting, could receive the full personal rate of the relevant social welfare assistance payment, irrespective of their partner’s means, then this would be prohibitively expensive.

The Report of the Working Group Examining the Treatment of Married, Cohabiting and One-Parent Families under the Tax and Social Welfare Codes looked at this area of social policy. They published their report in 1999. The Group found the individualisation of social welfare payments to be very complex and did not reach agreement on introducing total independent treatment. They found that full individualisation would carry with it significant cost implications.

There is no current costing available and no plans to change the treatment of cohabiting couples.