I welcome the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Mary Coughlan, to this meeting. On behalf of the committee I thank the Minister for taking time out of her busy schedule to explain and discuss the EU proposal COM (2003) 468, which proposes to amend regulations on the applications of social security schemes to certain categories of people moving within the European Union.
Social Security for Migrants: Ministerial Presentation.
I wish to introduce the officials who accompany me: Mr. Tim Quirke and Mr. Tom Mulhearn, assistant secretary, are from my Department; Mr. Dermot McGann and Ms Joan Gordon are from the Department of Health and Children.
I thank the committee for affording me the opportunity to discuss the recently published proposal document of the European Commission for amendment of Regulation 1408/71 and Regulation 574/72 on the co-ordination of social security for migrant members. I will also update the members on the progress being made in the Council of Ministers on the simplification and reform of Regulation 1408/71, which has been ongoing for some years. I will also deal with the European Parliament's consideration of the simplification and reform process and the Commission's response to the amendments adopted by Parliament as published in COM (2003) 596, which is currently being considered by the committee for EU scrutiny.
Free movement of persons is one of the cornerstones of European integration and one of the four freedoms enshrined in the EC treaty alongside free movement of goods, services and capital. One of the determining factors in whether people may enjoy this freedom is the guarantee that their social security rights will not be affected.
We have no copy of the Minister's speech.
The copies will be with us shortly.
In 1971, the Council of Ministers therefore adopted Regulation 1408/71, which is a unique instrument of co-ordination guaranteeing that people moving within the European Union retain social security rights. Over the years the provisions of the regulation have become increasingly complex and difficult to administer in practice, partly resulting from the extension of cover to particular categories - such as self-employed persons - and changes to member states' systems. In 1998 the Commission therefore presented a proposal to modernise and simplify the provisions of the regulation. In March 2001 in Stockholm, the European Council extended a mandate to the Council of Ministers for Social Affairs and Employment to establish parameters to modernise the regulation, thus accelerating the adoption process.
In December 2001 the Council, under the Belgian Presidency, adopted a set of 12 parameters which constituted a set of the basic principles which would form the basis of the modernisation of the regulation. In March 2002, the Barcelona European Council asked for work to be pursued as a matter of urgency on the basis of the parameters so that the negotiations could be finalised before the end of 2003. In March this year the European Council in Brussels underlined once again the need to accelerate the negotiations in order to respect the timetable indicated by the Barcelona Council. Substantial work was carried out under the Danish, Greek and Italian Presidencies in drafting the various chapters of the new regulation. Indeed, the Italian Presidency intends to have negotiations on the final document completed by the end of next December. If this goal is achieved it will fall to the Irish Presidency to reach co-decision agreement with the European Parliament before the end of its term in May 2004 and have the new regulations passed into law.
As with the simplification and reform of the existing measures, I will not list all the changes made by the Council to the Commission's 1998 proposal but I will highlight some of the key improvements. The main difference between the proposal and the current regulation concerns the personal scope of the regulation. The proposed regulation will apply to all EU citizens covered by the social security legislation of a member state. The application of co-ordination to all insured persons will meet the need to adapt it to the development of free movement within the Union, which is not only a right in favour of workers but also a reality for all European citizens. The proposed regulation also aims to extend the material scope of the co-ordination rules, including in the list of social security branches new forms of benefit such as pre-retirement benefits.
The Council agreed a number of important changes in the co-ordination rules governing health care services and sickness benefits. These include: the alignment of rights of different categories of insured persons during a temporary stay in another member state ^ that is, insured people are entitled to all necessary care with no requirement of emergency under the current provisions; for returned frontier workers, the continuation of health care in the state where they were last employed, where it is a matter of continuing treatment already started in that state - in addition, a pensioner who was a frontier worker during three out of the five years before his retirement on grounds of age or invalidity may continue to receive health care in the last state of employment without restrictions, as long as there is an agreement between the member states in question. The provisions also take account of the European Court of Justice rulings in the area of health care and provide for a more balanced sharing of costs between member states.
The chapters dealing with pensions have been greatly simplified in their structure and wording and the number of articles have been greatly reduced. The rules governing the co-ordination of family benefits have now been streamlined and brought together in a single chapter. In early December next, the Council hopes to approve new proposals for the co-ordination of unemployment benefits. This will involve a number of important changes. For example, member states will in future have the option of allowing unemployed persons to receive their unemployment benefit payments for up to six months, instead of the current three months, while seeking work abroad. It will also provide for direct payment of the benefit to the person concerned and there will be new arrangements for the payment of unemployment benefit to frontier workers with the introduction of a fairer sharing of costs between the worker's state of residence and his or her state of employment.
As outlined in the explanatory memorandum to the proposed regulation, the proposal updates Regulation 1408/71 and Regulation 574/72 to take account of changes in national legislation and recent development in the case law of the European Court of Justice, particularly those governing the classification of special non-contributory benefits currently listed in AnnexeIIa of the regulation. AnnexeIIa contains a list of special non-contributory benefits granted by member states to people exclusively within the territory of the member state in which they reside. In other words, they cannot be exported. The benefits in the annexe were entered by each member state on the basis that they had characteristics of both social insurance and social assistance - typically means-tested payments. Under the proposal the annexe is being amended to take account of new benefits of this type being introduced by member states and also to take account of recent developments in ECJ case law with regard to the classification of these special non-contributory benefits.
In light of the recent case law, the Commission considers it essential to review the list for each member state in order to ascertain whether the benefits listed meet the "special" and "non-contributory" criteria laid down by the European Court of Justice. The court has ruled that for a benefit to be "special" it must be clear that it is neither a conventional social insurance nor a social assistance scheme; it must have as its prime objective to react to the financial need of the persons concerned and guarantee them a minimum subsistence income - in other words, it should be aimed at preventing poverty; alternatively, it should be exclusively designed to provide specific support for disabled people.
In the case of Ireland, the Commission has proposed the deletion of nine benefits from Annexe IIa, four of which fall within the responsibility of my Department and five within the remit of the Department of Health and Children. These benefits are the one-parent family payment, orphan's non-contributory allowance, family income supplement, carer's allowance, domiciliary care allowance, mobility allowance, infectious diseases maintenance allowance, disabled persons' rehabilitation allowance - this was abolished and the rehabilitative training bonus introduced in August 2001 - and blind welfare allowance. In the case of the one-parent family payment, orphan's non-contributory allowance and family income supplement, the Commission is of the view that these benefits fall within the description of family benefits and accordingly should not be classified as special non-contributory benefits.
This proposed reclassification would not result in full exportability of these payments in all cases as they would in future be determined under the co-ordination rules for family benefits. For example, in the case of a family living in Northern Ireland with one parent working in the Republic, my Department is responsible for paying family benefits by virtue of the person's employment here. Such family benefits would comprise child benefit and family income supplement, if payable. However, if family benefits in Northern Ireland were greater than the combined family supports payable by my Department, a supplement representing the difference between the two benefit packages would be payable by the Northern Ireland authorities.
The Commission takes the view that carer's allowance should more properly be categorised as a sickness benefit for the purpose of the regulation and as such should be exportable. This view is based on its interpretation of the European Court's ruling of the Jauch and Molennaar cases referred to in paragraph 4 of its proposal. Care allowances were classified by the court in the Jauch case as sickness benefits in cash with the aim of improving the state of health and the life of dependent persons, even though the benefits may cover a number of aspects totally independent of the illness itself. I do not agree with the Commission's interpretation of the ruling in so far as it applies to our carer's allowance scheme. The carer's allowance is an income support payment paid directly to the carer, having regard to his or her personal circumstances. My Department will be stressing these unique features of the scheme in the forthcoming discussions on the proposal at Council with a view to having the scheme retained in the annexe. On those allowances under the remit of the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, I am advised that while that Department's view is that these allowances qualify for inclusion in the annexe, my ministerial colleague is to consider the position taking account of the current view of the Commission.
At its plenary session on 3 September 2003 the European Parliament adopted 47 amendments to the Commission's proposal. The Parliament's examination was based on the original Commission proposal of 1998 and, as such, Parliament did not have the benefit of discussions on the parameters that were agreed in 2001 and which formed the basis for drafting the legislative provisions in the subsequent Presidencies. The majority of amendments proposed by Parliament actually reflect the agreement reached in the social questions group of the Council and are therefore acceptable to Ireland. Four of the amendments cannot be accepted by the Commission either because there is no legal basis to deal with the issue, as in the case of taxation, or because the issues raised would be more properly dealt with in the context of an implementing regulation.
One of the amendments proposed by Parliament concerns payments for disabled people. Some of these are listed in Annexe Ila and therefore not exportable. The Parliament's position is in line with that of the Commission in that such payments are considered to be exportable. As I said earlier, my colleague the Minister for Health will be considering this matter further. I appreciate that these are complex regulations. We will try to address any concerns or provide additional information for the committee. I thank the committee again for facilitating us.
We have already had the benefitof the thoughts of some of the Minister'sofficials.
A week ago I asked that we be provided with a briefing document before this meeting. This document only arrived during the meeting. To be fair to us, we do not have the back-up the Minister has. She has four officials with her and three more at her back, which makes seven. I do not think we should be expected to respond to a document we received five minutes ago. I would like to have been able to telephone some of the officials to obtain a background briefing on this matter. We had three meetings today and we got the briefing document just before another meeting started. To be fair, we cannot respond. I do not have the resources; we need some back-up.
I am concerned that if this legislation is introduced we will not be allowed to keep our carer's allowance.
We are talking about exporting carer's allowance to another country. It is not that the allowance would not be available here; just that we would not be able to transport it.
If we are not to be allowed to transport it we will not be allowed to have ithere.
No, we can keep the allowance here but we cannot transport it to another country.
What effect will this proposal have on our country in terms of costs? Will there be a major cost involved?
My question is linked to this. If this proposal is implemented, will it be the case that people who have built up benefits - apart from unemployment assistance, old age and blind pensions, widow's pensions and disability allowance - through their contributions over the years, and who leave this country to take up residency in another EU country, will not be able to receive transferred payments? Will they be unable to pick up the benefit or allowance for which they have worked throughout the years?
To clarify matters, we are only talking about contributory benefits. All social assistance is a matter for the individual states. The question was about the transportability of one's insurance contributions. These can be transferred abroad. If one is entitled to an old age contributory pension from Ireland and one decides to live in Spain, one can draw down one's pension. Changing residency means one can transfer one's entitlements from home to another part of the EU. A person can take with him the contributions he has made.
What about the family income supplement?
The family income supplement is not part of the annexe. Is the Deputy reading from the notes I provided?
No.
Is he talking about family benefit?
I am talking about family income supplements.
The Commission has suggested that this should be transported. At the moment one cannot take one's family income supplement or carer's allowance abroad. In normal circumstances, contributory old age pension, unemployment benefit and disability benefit are the three things that can be transferred abroad. The Commission is now saying that carer's allowance is not a family benefit but a sickness benefit and should therefore be transportable. It also sees the family income supplement as a family benefit, with which I do not agree, and says that should equally be transportable. This is not the case at present.
Is it the Commission's view that the other eight or nine benefits - the one-parent family payment, carer's allowance, family income supplement, mobility allowance, infectious disease maintenance allowance, domiciliary care allowance, blind benefit allowance and disabled person's rehabilitation allowance - should be transferable in future?
That is what it is suggesting.
The Minister is clearly opposed to this.
I have serious concerns about the way the Commission determines what a family benefit is here. Carer's allowance is our main concern. The Commission says that carer's allowance is actually a sickness benefit, whereas it is paid to the carer, not the person who is unwell. The person who is unwell can often receive a benefit of his or her own, such as disability allowance. It does not make sense.
The Commission is saying that if a person who is ill goes to England accompanied by his or her carer the carer should be paid, but the Minister is saying he or she should not be paid.
Yes. That is the present position.
What about the financial implications for this country?
One would still be entitled to the allowance if one was living here, so it would not be a huge additional cost. Carer's allowance is based on the fact that the person being cared for is in need of full-time care and assistance. Somebody in this position does not usually move to another country.
What will be the cost of the effect of the regulation on all the different schemes? We got it wrong fairly badly with the P53 provisions. What effect will this have on our economy? What is it going to cost us if next May the EU or the Presidency decide that this is going to be implemented in this country?
We are talking about 6,000 people currently being affected, about €7,000 a year.
Are we going to have to pick up the tab for people who come into the country? The barriers are coming down next May.
Is the Deputy asking what is the reciprocity? In other words, if someone who is unwell moves into this country——
I am talking about carers in all the schemes. There will be many sick people coming in. Naturally, if people are sick they are not inclined to move, unless there are compelling family circumstances. I am talking about the other schemes where they are talking about the movement in all of Europe. If there is a large influx to Ireland next year of people who were working in their home countries but find themselves unemployed for the first three or six months here that will put a major strain on our economy and the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Has the Department done any costing on this?
We have not done a costing on the grounds that I do not agree that these should be transportable types of payments.
The Minister does not agree?
No. I am not as au fait perhaps with the provisions of the Department of Health and Children but we could not evaluate the reciprocity for example, of family income supplement, carer’s allowance, the orphan’s non-contributory allowance or the one-parent family allowance, but it could be high if people decided that the best decision was to come to live here. The Deputy is talking about people from another EU country coming here and being entitled to these allowances.
A constituent rang my office seven times yesterday after she heard the Minister or some official of her Department on Raidió na Gaeltachta or some other station. This person was quite perturbed by the announcement this week, that from January of next year if someone is receiving a contributory pension from England and one from Ireland, a portion of both contributory pensions, he or she can claim only one but not both. I do not believe that announcement was made. Will the Minister please confirm that it is not true?
That is not true.
I said that.
If one is entitled to a contributory pension, part or full, in another EU country one is equally entitled to keep that and the entitlement in Ireland, or any other countries. Many combinations are possible.
I wanted to hear that. I can send the transcript of what the Minister said to my constituent. It saves me tabling a Parliamentary Question to the Minister.
I thank the Deputy. That saves me €100.
I would like the Minister to clarify whether if a person who was drawing unemployment benefit here moves to another country the Irish State continues to pay that benefit abroad for six months and how this is policed. In other words, if the person is working abroad how can the Department police this? If a person was sick abroad and was getting free medication and so on can that person come into this country and receive the free medication here, even though the person might be very well off?
We are talking about people who are working in another jurisdiction and are entitled to the health care of that jurisdiction. That person is entitled to complete that health care but we pay for it. The unemployment benefit is a different matter. One is entitled to seek work in another country for up to three months. That has now been extended to six months to allow people to receive their benefits from here while looking for work in another country within the EU.
How is it policed?
Through the usual forms and applications. One has to be registered as unemployed and entitled to unemployment benefit. One has to be entitled to the payment here according to our rules and registered but then one can go to another country to get a job, rightly so, if needs be, and one has a particular skill. One will be paid unemployment benefit for up to three months, now extended to six months. One has to be registered in the other country in which one is seeking work, so one cannot be going on holidays. One has to be registered with that country's counterpart to our Department showing that one is available for, and seeking, work. That is the cross-check that applies.
I welcome the Minister to the committee. I compliment her on standing firm against the Commission's view on the carer's allowance. It would be inappropriate that we would rename the carer's allowance a sickness benefit or allowance. It has nothing to do with that. A carer's allowance is paid to a person who cares; an able-bodied person who receives it under two headings, for having given up a job, in which case the person is entitled to carer's benefit, or as an allowance for looking after someone. It would be inappropriate that it would revert to or be reclassified as a sickness benefit of any sort. I support the Minister all the way as it is important to make sure that the Commission does not have its way in that.
If the carer's allowance is to be considered, - I mentioned this at the last meeting of the committee - it should be in two areas where the system does not offer enough support. One, it should help those people who are already receiving social welfare payments, are looking after a person who needs care and are excluded from receiving any further payment because we have a regulation that a second social welfare payment cannot be made. This is something new because in the past it was possible to make two payments; we paid a prescribed relative's allowance which was a top-up on an old age pension. Some people, widows and others, are the victims of discrimination. They are on social welfare and cannot receive a carer's allowance for looking after someone to whom in many cases they give care round the clock. If changes are to be made that group needs to be looked after. I can outline many examples on my books and I hope that in the coming social welfare legislation that category of people will be looked after, and they should be. They have been the victims of discrimination for too long.
The other group comprises those who give up their jobs and receive carer's benefit. At the end of 15 months they are told they are no longer wanted, their benefit has run out and they are advised to return to their jobs and the person for whom they were caring is left without care. That is inappropriate. If we set up a system to enable someone to care for another person we should not restrict it to 15 months. There has to be some lifting of the regulation under which if a person gives up a job and goes to care for a sick relative at 15 months is no longer considered for the benefit and because of his or her spouse's income is excluded from receiving the carer's allowance. Those are two serious anomalies in the support for carers at present. Changes should be made to that regulation.
Deputy Callanan mentioned the issue of medicine. I have some worries about the cost implications of that for this country. I do not fully understand how it would operate. I would like more information but it seems that it is a very open-ended and that there could be serious cost implications for the future. Maybe I am misreading it or do not understand it to the extent that the Minister or her officials do. The medication bill is quite high at present. If arising out of the Commission's ruling we open the door to other situations that would impose a further burden on the costs. What are the cost implications of the extension of the medicine scheme? What authority does the Commission have over these matters? It has identified several areas but ultimately is it a decision for the member state or for the Commission? Can we as a member state say that we will pick and choose, devise our own interpretations and implement our allowances? After all they are allowances.
To an extent the Commission is only interfering in State supports. Does it want to regularise them all over Europe? Is the Commission jealous of some of the allowances that we have? Why is it interfering so much in what has been built up here over the years in regard to family income supports or allowances? They are very beneficial. With several members of this committee, I attended a meeting in Spain recently and discovered, to put it mildly, that this and recent Governments have been far more supportive of carers than governments in many other parts of Europe. This seems to be an attempt to turn back the clock somewhat. The Minister is right to hold firm on it.
Deputy Finneran should not pre-empt the recommendations of the committee in the carer's area because we are working at that.
There are a couple of issues there. Two are national issues dealing with the extension of carer's benefit eligibility criteria beyond 15 months, a social insurance issue. That is a view that the committee has expressed and will have to be considered in a budgetary context. The other looks at a second payment for those in receipt of carer's allowance, for example, those who are widows. The statistics show that several people over 65 are carers and would be entitled to another payment in their own right. This is a policy decision in that one does not get a second payment, we determine which is the best support to the family but the committee has been most vociferous about this issue and it will have to be looked at in the context of carer's allowance per se as a national issue. Perhaps we should start at the beginning and outline the purpose of this. It is intended to co-ordinate and protect people’s rights to move within the European Union, taking with them their insurance supports. That is the bottom line. For some it may have a reciprocity in cost but at the end of the day it is intended to protect our people who travel abroad.
Several issues have been raised. The carer's allowance is one about which I am particularly concerned as a Minister at the Council of Ministers. We are talking specifically about carers who are looking after people in receipt of contributory pensions, not any other type of person who is unwell. Therefore, we are talking about approximately 6,000 people who would be on old age contributory pensions, widow's or widower's contributory pensions, and so on. The Commission has said this is the sickness benefit. One should be able to transport a sickness benefit, like disability benefit, to another country where one resides. If one reclassifies carer's allowance as a sickness benefit it removes the meaning of carer's allowance which is to support the carer of the person who is unwell. On that basis I have a problem with it. The Commission is changing the ethos of a carer's allowance and it does not fit within the category about which we are talking. It is not a sickness benefit; it is an allowance to support carers. As such it is a means-tested scheme, not an insurance-based one and therefore it is outside the ambit of 1408. For that reason I do not agree with the Commission.
In regard to carers?
In regard to carers and carer's allowance.
We all agree with the Minister on that.
The status quo should remain. Does that explain a little more clearly what we are saying? When we talk about people and sickness entitlement anyone who comes to this country and is resident and falls within the parameters of the means test is entitled to a medical card and to hospital care. The Department of Health and Children is concerned about the reciprocity, that for Irish people working abroad in some circumstances we pay the difference between the cost of care for that person at home and abroad. If an Irish person is working abroad as a short-term worker, is not resident full-time in that country, and falls ill the Department of Health and Children pays the requisite costs towards that person’s care. That has a cost factor but if that person became unwell at home we would still have that cost factor so it is not a great difference. It is designed to support people who go abroad to work, in particular on a short-term basis so that the cost of health care will be covered because it would be covered equally here, within the normal parameters of the schemes. The same applies for the holidays and the health card.
Does the E11 form work on the same principle?
Yes, it is the same principle. The E11 form is going to be changed to a card because at its last meeting the Council of Ministers agreed that instead of having various forms they would introduce a card, similar to our social welfare cards. On that basis one will have a European health benefit card which will show entitlements if one becomes ill while on holiday or working short-term in the European Union.
Does the reverse apply, if someone comes in here from abroad? Does that person's State pay?
Yes.
Reciprocity is the point.
Unless that person is going to be resident here. If the person is resident here it is a different situation.
That is a different thing.
That is the problem, who is a resident?
One has to be here for a year and must not claim for three months. One has to be ordinarily resident here.
The Revenue Commissioners have a good hold on that.
They do, as does my Department. One is only recognised as permanently resident if one does not come in to be a UB claimant within three months. There are factors to be considered to determine residency.
We do not need to worry about that.
The Minister has already mentioned the problem regarding those on contributory pensions, such as widows or widowers, not being entitled to receive the carer's allowance. I feel strongly about that and I have mentioned it umpteen times. I cannot miss the opportunity of having the Minister here so close to the budget. It would not cost a large sum overall but it is an issue near to my heart. Is a person who worked in England and is now living here, as is common in the Minister's area in Donegal and mine in Cavan-Monaghan, automatically entitled to a medical card?
Yes.
Does it have no bearing on the issue we are discussing here?
That is a totally different issue.
Mr. Dermot McGann
Since these regulations came into force in 1971 we have had a bilateral agreement with the UK Government. It works both ways. People who have spent their lives in England, have worked up their entitlements there and come back to live here get a medical card, and people who worked here and go back to England would also be treated in England in the same way. In other words, that person would have full cover. In the agreement there is a methodology for calculating the cost to either State and in the Book of Estimates, under appropriations-in-aid, the Deputy will see that for migrant workers, the UK contribution is something like €350 million. The UK Government pays quite dearly for it in one sense. That is a net figure; obviously we owe the United Kingdom something. Part of that is for people who work in England and whose families live here. The United Kingdom will pay for that as well. There are small payments for things such as short-term visitors either way. We have a calculation method there to cover potential health costs; they do not necessarily have to occur. In the same way anybody who has a medical card may not use it often, although most likely the holder does but there is a methodology for costing this, so the net gain to our Vote is €350 million.
Only a few weeks ago I came across a case where a community welfare officer was not absolutely clear on this. We did sort it out but it was difficult.
Mr. McGann
If one worked most of one's life in the United Kingdom but did have an entitlement through working in Ireland to a contributory pension of even a small amount, one is classified as a dual pensioner. This group is the responsibility of the resident State so we would have to pay, even if one had worked 35 years in England and only five years here. That is the rule. Once there is a contribution——
This person had worked in Northern Ireland until her marriage fairly late in her life and then she moved down here.
Then she had no contributions.
No, she had no contributions here.
Mr. McGann
Then she would be entitled to a medical card.
Thank you for clarifying that.
I have had some time to consider this. I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister in trying to protect the definition of carers in that context. That is as far as I would go. This is a positive recommendation from the Commission in the same way as much of the movement in the past on social welfare, and social welfare benefits, has emanated from Brussels. We would never have received the benefits otherwise. Here we have a situation where the Commission is recommending, for example, that someone leaving Ireland for a short time——
No, for the rest of the person's life if that is what the person wants; forever.
If somebody is receiving a blind person's allowance here or is in receipt of an infectious diseases allowance, or a domiciliary care allowance, each of which is a small extra payment, the Commission is saying that people who build up those contributions for several years——
These are non-contributory allowances.
The person builds them up as a right.
As a means-tested allowance. One cannot transfer means-tested allowances around the European Union. One can transfer only one's insurance.
In the context of the type of ailments and disabilities allowances here, with the exception of the carer's allowance, it is a positive move.
The converse of that is, for example, if someone is receiving an infectious disease maintenance allowance and moves to the UK that person could in his or her own right be entitled to something similar in the UK.
The person has to take up residence there. That is the point I made initially.
That is correct; after the person has taken up residence.
After the person takes up residence he or she would not be entitled to them, or should not be entitled? We could bring that into the discussion.
Does the Deputy mean if the person went on holidays?
If the person went to work for up to a year. In that sort of situation the person could be entitled and rightly so.
Yes, if the Deputy is referring to a short-term benefit, not a residency issue.
No. The person is entitled to the benefits in his or her own right in the country where he or she is based.
If the Deputy is referring to a short-term stay the answer is yes. The person gets his or her book, or whatever it is, indicating to what he or she is entitled. However, if one decides to go and live permanently in another country that country has to support the person, as opposed to this State.
If a person goes away for a year or 18 months are those allowances which we have mentioned payable at present?
For 18 months, no.
Are any of those allowances paid up to 12 months?
Mr. McGann
I cannot answer the Deputy on that. This does not deal with the short-term. It is most likely that if one had these allowances from a health board on a short-term basis and one went away the health board would continue to pay them.
I am not certain that is the case.
Mr. McGann
I am not either but I would imagine that it is so from the way they are paid. They are paid not on a weekly basis but usually on a quarterly basis and so forth. We are talking here about regulations that are to change in the case of permanency, if someone is moving away permanently. People who move in the short-term would perhaps be dealt with differently. I can find out. I am not an expert in that area.
In my Department for example, one has to have been living in this country to be entitled to the following allowances: one-parent family, orphan's non-contributory, family income supplement and carer's. If one decides to move to England or into Northern Ireland or to France one is not entitled to take those allowances which are means-tested to that country. One could be entitled to something similar on becoming resident in that other country. There is reciprocity there too of course.
If it is not being paid all of those payments could be transferred until the person became resident in that other country, if the person was eligible for them? For example, family income supplement——
That is attached to work.
The person could not be eligible for that.
No, the person could not be eligible. That is attached to work.
Would the person not be eligible for that if he or she was working in another country?
No.
Therefore, it would not apply. It would apply only where the person was eligible.
The person would never be eligible because once he or she left work in this State he or she would have lost entitlement to family income supplement.
It terminates?
It terminates immediately. Once one is gone that is the end of it. It makes no sense to make that transferable because it is attached to one's 20 hours of work.
There are some instances where it could be transferred.
The crux of concern is the carer's allowance. The others are comme ci, comme ca; some do not make any sense whatsoever.
We have made the point about the carer's allowance. We would be broadly in agreement with that. In any event it is a difficult area.
The Minister's best point was on the carer's allowance. The committee is in broad agreement with that.
In any event, it is a difficult issue. I thank the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, and her officials for coming back to the committee on this issue. We are certainly more clear on it. The Minister's visit to the committee indicates the need for committees to get more support in this area. Everyone hands us down jobs and tasks to do. We have been three hours working through proposals here. I am glad the Minister could give her time to dealing with this complex area. it indicates the need for committees to have further back-up for tasks, such as EU scrutiny, we are assigned. it is easy to delegate those functions. However, we need more back-up to ensure that we perform that role. This committee took its role seriously is asking Department officials to attend the committee. They were helpful but we had to evaluate that issue and get more information.
The committee will now consider the EU proposal and will report in due course to the Dáil and to the EU scrutiny sub-committee.
The Chairman can now appreciate that the ethos behind this was the protection of people's rights and the modernisation and simplification of the system. The word "simplification" sometimes does not sit well with the EU. However, it is taking on board significant changes that have taken place within all insurance structures and marrying them together, so that people will have a handbook of their entitlements when moving between member states. I appreciate that I may not have been as clear as I should on this proposal. However, at the back of our minds, we must look to supporting our people who move abroad and ensure that they receive their due entitlements.
I appreciate being afforded the opportunity to bring this matter to the committee. It will be discussed further at our Council of Ministers meetings in Brussels at the beginning of December. At this stage, the Italian Presidency hopes to have completed its chapters and it will befall on us to have it completed by February or March 2004 when the European Parliament will consider it. If there are other issues on which people wish me to obtain information, I am more than happy to facilitate the committee.
Can the Minister send me an answer in writing so that I can send it to the lady I referred to earlier on?
Yes. I presume the Deputy will be on North West Radio thanking the Minister.
That was one of the overambitious programme managers it has.
As long as there is no picture on North West Radio, the Deputy does not mind.
The joint committee went into private session at 5.05 p.m. and adjourned at 5.10 p.m. until2 p.m. on Tuesday, 2 December 2003.