Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
STATE BENEFITS PAID to single-parent families will be curbed from next month, according to a letter circulated to recipients.
The circular, sent by the Department of Social Protection from its Sligo headquarters, informs recipients of the One-Family Parent (OFP) payment that the state will begin to lower the age at which children no longer entitle their parent to the payment effective from April 27 next month.
From next month, new claimants will receive the payment only until their child turns 14 – a significant reduction from the current system, where the payment is made to claimants whose children are up to 18 years old, or 22 years old in the case of children in full-time education.
Existing claimants will have the payment cut off from January 2013 if their child has turned 17, with the age limit reduced every year until January 2016, after which payment will stop when the child reaches the age of 14.
The new rules will mean that, from next month, single parents with children up to 18 years of age – or up to 22 years of age if they are still in secondary or third level education – while new applicants from the end of April will only be able to receive the same payments for children under the age of 14.
The rules were signed into law by the former social protection minister Éamon Ó Cuív on March 1 – the week after the general election saw his Fianna Fáil party booted out of office, but before he was replaced as minister by Joan Burton.
The payment currently stands at €188 a week, though the payment is means-tested and is not paid to parents earning more than €425 a week. Claimants are required to apply for the payment within three months of becoming eligible to receive it.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Now Mr Pringle,
Can you get back to focussing on why you were elected and stop using your time to take spurious legal cases
You have an objection to someone testing a treaty before the courts? A case that the Irish Supreme Court agreed should be sent to Europe? Maybe we should just ban the right of Irish citizens to access the courts.
Well Kerry, I hope he pays the costs and not ourselves, I do love how the likes of Pringle is outraged at having to pay “bankers debts” then happily expects us to bankroll his court challenges like this.
the likes of Pringle is outraged at having to pay âbankers debtsâ
And hopefully not at our cost.
Laura I’m outraged to be paying the bankers costs as a tax payer. I’ve not objection in an Irish citizen questioning a treaty if they are concerned about it. His questions by the way were validated by the Irish courts referring it to Europe. Europe took the question so seriously 27 judges reviewed the oral submissions. Do you think the right of an Irish citizen to take a court case should be removed? Because that is what you are saying.
@Kerry it was referred there not because the supreme court thought his case had merit, but because it wasn’t legally competent to interpret EU in this scenario. They did not in any way endorse his argument in doing so.
There was nothing democratic in his actions: the treaty was approved by referendum here. This was just a pathetic attempt to circumvent that decision.
He better be footing the bill for this.
European Court supports European Institution …
Gosh! What a shocker.
end of story.
respect to thomas pringle for taking the time and effort to make sure it was at it should be.some of ye think that it’s ok to take every thing that comes from above unquestioned so If we left it up to ye we would be back in the dark ages where the church and landed gentry ruled the people and if some one hadnt challenged that system it would still be dominate. Wake up will ye to whats going on around ye and it is ok to challenge authority and if thomas pringle has the time and where with all to take on this particular issue on our behalf then fair play to him.
It was questioned. We called it a referendum.
And it was approved. If the treaty had violated EU, perhaps it would have occured to someone to just change it? They didn’t because it didn’t.
Ger there was no referendum on the ESM treaty. There was one on a different treaty called the Fiscal treaty. For more on each of the two treaties and how they relate – http://www.taleoftwotreaties.tumblr.com
Mr pringle can do what he likes but its us. that will be paying for this court case. and it won’t be cheap
Petr
Enjoying freeloading yourself?
Garry,
Too stupid to reply to the correct comment?
Paying a relativity small legal bill compared to the financial rape payments to Bankers is to be welcomed. There will always be people who say we shouldn’t question authority. They’re the type that would send their kids to war on behalf of Goldman and co.
Thanks Pringle. At least you tried. Respect.
Don’t try to treat us as fools. The bill will run to millions of Euro for a bit of publicity ad self aggrandizement .
Millions of euro’s Garry? If you read the article you might see it was a oral hearing nothing more. Less of the exaggeration please. Amazing the people who seem to have a problem with someone exercising their democratic right to contest something in the courts. Even more frightening is the amount of people who seem to disagree with the Irish courts opting to refer the case to Europe for final judgement.
Hear hear – Ireland is committed to give at least 11billion to this fund..which may not be used to help with Ireland’s debt! Thank you Pringle.
On the Goldman (and a festive) note – this video is quite relevant here I think, in a case about setting up an institution to save banks! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HwH7DmSvH1c
So who pays for this legal argument?? Will pringle pay himself or will it be the Irish taxpayer again? I reckon the latter
pringle gets the headlines we get the bill
Once he pops, he just can’t stop. He’d challenge a traffic light…
Since Pringle brought this challenge, of course he should pay…..The ESM was already challenged in Germany, so why did he think his challenge would get the ECF, to reverse there decision in his favour…If the Supreme court here wants to challenge the ECF on matters let them…….He should pay, end of story, did he think it would be for free…
To Pringle – HA!
I’m not sure why we the Irish government or taxpayers would have to pay this. They didn’t initiate the action, nor did they support it. It was a case taken by Pringle himself. The High Court and Supreme Court in Ireland didn’t rule in his favour either.
Jim
You’re perfectly correct. These guys believe that the State awaits their pleasure and are dangerous enough to massively misuse funds at the State’s expense to push their own agenda or self aggrandisement. The Courts should apportion full costs against him
Jim the courts in Ireland referred the case to Europe because they could not answer it. Imagine that 1 person got the attention of 27 judges. Maybe Pringle should replace Enda at least he would get a bit more attention from Europe.
Misread headline as “ESM is awful”!
what’s with ye olde englishe
have your say