I apologise for the unavoidable absence of my colleague, the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs.
The situation in relation to this case remains as stated in a written reply to a parliamentary question tabled by the Deputy on 30 September last. The person's continuing entitlement to a one parent family payment was determined by a statutorily appointed deciding officer who decided she was not entitled to payment on grounds of cohabitation. An appeal against this decision was made to the independent social welfare appeals office. Following two oral hearings of the appeal, an appeals officer upheld the decision that she was not entitled to this payment on grounds of cohabitation. The appeals officer's decision on the claim is final and conclusive and can only be reviewed in the light of new evidence or if it is established that a mistake has been made in relation to the law or in relation to the facts. There is nothing to suggest that the decision in this case warrants revision in these circumstances.
As the Deputy is no doubt aware, the Minister has no function in the adjudication process in relation to entitlements under this or any other statutory social welfare scheme. Under the relevant legislation, these are matters for deciding officers and, in the event of an appeal, for appeals officers appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Social Welfare Acts. On the question of disqualification by reason of cohabitation, it is a long established principle of the social welfare code that persons who cohabit are not entitled to lone parent type income support. This dates back to the 1930s and has been maintained in all subsequent social welfare legislation relating to deserted wives, lone parents and, most recently, with the one parent family payment scheme. This principle is based on the view that the State is prepared to provide income support for persons who are widowed or who are parents raising a child on their own with limited means.
The Deputy has argued that a person who is cohabiting on a part-time basis should not be regarded as cohabiting for the purposes of the scheme. The concept of part-time cohabitation does not exist in social welfare law. As the Deputy is aware, there are many married couples who are not co-residing fully each week for a wide variety of reasons but who are obviously in a stable relationship with each other. In the final analysis, the deciding officer, or appeals officer, must form a judgment on whether the circumstances of the case are sufficiently similar to those of a married couple so as to establish that the client concerned and another person are cohabiting as husband and wife.
The facts in relation to the specific case raised by Deputy Durkan are that the person concerned was receiving a one parent family payment — formerly lone parent's allowance — for some years. Following a detailed reinvestigation of her situation, it was decided that she and another person were cohabiting as husband and wife.
In accordance with natural justice procedures, the Department wrote to the person concerned in December 1997 outlining the evidence available and offering her the opportunity to submit any further information in support of her case prior to any revised decision on her claim. She declined to respond. Consequently, a deciding officer decided to revoke her entitlement to one family payment with effect from 29 January 1998 on the grounds that she was cohabiting with another person as husband and wife.
She exercised her statutory right to appeal this decision to the independent social welfare appeals office. An appeals officer held two oral hearings on her case, in May and July 1998. The appeals officer subsequently upheld the decision that she was not entitled to one parent family payment on grounds of cohabitation.
The person concerned is now claiming unemployment assistance. This latest claim is being investigated by a local officer of the Department and she will be notified of the outcome as soon as possible.
