Edward Timmins (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

105. To ask the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection if he will request his staff to reopen the appeal of a person (details supplied) who’s application for carer’s benefit has been rejected; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14355/25]

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Social Welfare Appeals Office is an Office of the Department of Social Protection which is responsible for determining appeals against decisions in relation to social welfare entitlements. Appeals Officers are independent in their decision making functions.

I am advised by the Social Welfare Appeals Office that the person concerned applied for Carer’s Benefit on 27th November 2023 and the Department refused the claim on 13th December 2023 determining that the appellant did not satisfy the employment condition set out in legislation.

The Social Welfare Appeals Office has confirmed to me that the person in question appealed that decision. An Appeals Officer examined the information provided with the original application and the grounds of appeal. The appellant’s employer had confirmed that the appellant was working under the required hours. She had not established with substantive evidence the requirement set out in legislation that she was engaged in remunerative employment for a minimum of 16 hours per week, for at least 8 weeks in the relevant 26 week period. Accordingly the appeal was disallowed.

The appellant subsequently requested a review of the Appeals Officer’s decision under Section 318 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, 2005. A review under Section 318 provides that the Chief Appeals Officer may, at any time, revise any decision of an appeals officer, where it appears to the Chief Appeals Officer that the decision was erroneous by reason of some mistake having been made in relation to the law or the facts.

The Chief Appeals Officer examined the governing legislation, Section 100(1) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, as amended, in their decision. Section 100(5) of that Act gives the detail about the hours required.

100 (5) In this section “remunerative full-time employment” means remunerative employment for not less than 16 hours a week within the 8 weeks referred to in subsection (1)(a) or any period that may be prescribed under subsection (6), provided that where any 2 of those weeks are consecutive, the requirement in relation to those 2 weeks may be satisfied by an aggregate of not less than 32 hours in that fortnight.

She found that there was no scope in this legislation to allow for non-contracted hours to be applied in order to meet the required number of hours. She found that the Appeals Officer did not err in fact or in law in their decision and declined to revise the decision.

I trust this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.