Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 24 June 2025
579. Deputy John Connolly asked the Minister for Social Protection the rationale behind the stipulation requiring disability allowance recipients to notify his Department before leaving the State; the specific function this stipulation serves; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34019/25]
Amharc ar fhreagra580. Deputy John Connolly asked the Minister for Social Protection to provide the location within the legislation where the stipulation requiring disability allowance recipients to notify his Department before leaving the State, is detailed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34020/25]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 579 and 580 together.
Disability Allowance is a long-term social assistance scheme for people who are aged between 16 and 66 with an injury, disease or disability that has continued, or may be expected to continue, for at least one year and, as a result of this disability, the person is substantially restricted in undertaking work that would otherwise be suitable. In order to qualify, the person must satisfy a means test, meet the medical requirement and satisfy the habitual residency condition.
The main provisions relating to Disability Allowance are contained in Chapter 10 of Part 3 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 as amended.
Social welfare legislation provides that for entitlement to Disability Allowance a person must be habitually resident in the State.
Payment can continue for the first two weeks of absence from the State in any 12-month period. All recipients are required to notify the Department of any changes in circumstance which may impact their payment. This includes plans to be absent from the State. This practices ensures that the payments are made only to people who continue to be eligible for the scheme.
I am satisfied that the current travel arrangements are appropriate. Increasing payment periods while outside the state would call into question whether a person was actually resident in the State. It would also lead to inconsistencies across other social assistance payments as to what is regarded as a “temporary absence” from the State.
Any further changes to these arrangements would have legislative implications and could only be considered in an overall budgetary and policy context.
I trust this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
