Welfare rights confusion ‘failing migrants’

CONFUSION over the welfare rights of migrants is unfairly depriving some foreigners of benefits, the head of the social welfare appeals office has warned.

Chief appeals officer Brian Flynn said some staff handling claims at the Department of Social, Family and Community Affairs were making decisions that were “harsh” or “inconsistent” or failed to take into account all of the circumstances of the individual involved.

Some of the problems involved the child benefit payment for migrant workers. EU regulations direct that the payment should move with the worker and that the authorities in each member state should liaise with others and “ensure that there is a seamless transfer of entitlement”.

However, Mr Flynn said there had been a number of cases appealed “in which the provisions of these EU regulations were not applied resulting in a loss of entitlement for the families involved”.

Other appeals were received from non-EU migrant workers who had paid PRSI and believed they were entitled to social welfare only to discover their claims were turned down because they had invalid work permits.

Mr Flynn said although this was legally correct such decisions “could be regarded as somewhat harsh” in the case of workers employed under the old permit scheme, which applied before 2007 as permits were then the responsibility of the employer.

“In the cases which arose on appeal, it was the employer’s failure to obtain or renew a work permit that resulted in problems for the employed person.”

Appeals were also received from migrants who were refused social assistance payments solely on the grounds that they failed the two-year “habitual residence” condition. Mr Flynn said the residency requirement was “not conclusive in its own right” yet some staff at the department were using it as the main basis for decisions and were “failing to look at other issues”.

He added that there was a need for greater consistency in deciding claims across the board. “Appeals officers are still coming across appeal cases in which conflicting decisions have been given in respect of the same person claiming different payments.”

The appeals office’s annual report for 2007, published yesterday, showed 14,070 appeals against decisions made by the department were received last year, a 2% increase on 2006 and, in line with previous years, more appellants were successful than were unsuccessful. A total of 47% of appeals which proceeded had favourable outcomes for the individual concerned while 41% did not. The remaining 12% were withdrawn before the case review was complete.

Mr Flynn warned that some departmental staff were classifying all overpayments as fraud when the excess payment may have been due to a genuine change in the individual’s circumstances.

“This is a serious development given that an allegation of fraud could lead to additional penalties and even to the institution of a criminal prosecution.”

He said he would be recommending that departmental staff be given addition training.