Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

In fairness, they are relevant because the amendment deals with the issue of habitual residency.

In response to Deputy Willie O'Dea, I am satisfied that there is no policy change with the amendment. What used to be the two-year rule is no more. I only discovered this in my studies in the past couple of months. The two-year rule was overturned by the European Court of Justice in favour of a new provision, whereby a person's habitual residence is established according to consideration of five tests or factors to work out his or her centre of economic interest. It concerns where he or she works and where his or her family and savings are. That is, of course, much trickier to interpret than having something very straightforward such as a two-year rule. That is what my officials have to look at in determining whether somebody is habitually resident. It probably is interpreted strictly, which is not necessarily bad. We do not want people to arrive in Ireland and claim under our welfare system if they are not habitually resident and do not have a centre of interest here. I am sure most people do not want that to be the case.

Deputy John Brady made a very valid point about the downside of all of this in referring to returning emigrants who are Irish citizens. I have come across this in the case of missionaries returning from missions having not been habitually resident in Ireland for a very long time. We are looking to find some solutions to that dilemma. However, obviously under European law we have to treat all European citizens the same. There are many Irish citizens who have never lived in Ireland. If we were to say they or somebody who has been out of the country for 40 years could avail of the welfare system straightaway, we would have to give the same right to 500 million EU citizens.

That is one of the consequences of the freedom of movement and the four freedoms that people are so attached to for various reasons.

With regard to returning emigrants specifically, arrangements are in place with Safe Home, a registered charity, to assist with the difficulties experienced by some returning Irish emigrants in demonstrating their intentions to live here permanently for the purpose of satisfying the habitual residence condition. To assist such persons, Safe Home has arranged a checklist of a range of documents that will help show that a person has returned to Ireland permanently. Safe Home has also designed a declaration which will confirm that a person is engaging with it as part of the person's repatriation. The declaration is associated with any social assistance claim the person might make. These measures help to expedite the decision-making process in these cases as it can be accepted as proof that the person has returned to reside in the State on a permanent basis. This is very much for the case of the Irish person who retires back to Ireland after being gone for a very long time.

With regard to displaced persons, while the amendments in this subsection primarily update the current provisions to ensure all those categories of persons who were previously recognised in the habitual residence provision as having a right to reside retain that position. It is also intended that an additional permission to reside in the State is included in the section. This is for people who have been granted temporary protection in accordance with the International Protection Act 2015. The Act provides for EU laws for immediate and temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons who are unable to return to their country of origin. If this is invoked, this measure would provide a balance of efforts between member states in receiving such displaced third country nationals. The section provides for a displaced person to be given permission by the Minister for Justice and Equality to enter and remain in the State, for temporary protection, as part of this group of persons. If there was a mass influx, it would allow us to do that.