Paul McGrath (Westmeath, Fine Gael)

It was a great bonus that came every month and families were delighted with it. By the time I arrived — I was fairly late on the scene and was the tenth child in my household — no payment was made in respect of me at all. If one had only one child, one did not get the payment. The great day came, in the 1950s or 1960s, when there was a payment made for one child. It amounted to 10 shillings and we were in clover. It made an awful difference.

This is why there are different child benefit payments for different people. In the interest of equality it is not justifiable to have one rate of payment for the first and second children and another rate for further children. This needs to be addressed by the Minister.

A very interesting fact that the Minister should note when considering child benefit — the figures have changed over the years — is that 22% of recipients receive no other form of income in their name. These recipients, amounting to approximately 110,000, are virtually all women. It is very important that this payment be maintained at a reasonably high rate. The Minister should consider this.

I believed this Bill would address the habitual residence clause in so far as it applies to social welfare payments because what is happening at present is grossly unfair. In recent weeks I have come across a number of European nationals from Poland and other such countries who have suffered in this regard. They have come here to work and have been working, mostly in the construction trade. If the weather deteriorates in the approach to Christmas, many people in the construction trade close up shop. If this occurs, the immigrants, who are probably on the minimum wage, get turfed out because they have no work. They go to their local social welfare office to try to get a few shillings but cannot do so because the habitual residence clause is applied. They are told they have only been in the country for ten months, a year or a year and a half and have not been here for the magic two years required under the clause. They are therefore turned down.

What are they supposed to do? Many sleep rough in this city because they cannot afford to pay the rent. This is not right. We allow these EU nationals to work in Ireland, which they are entitled to do, and they pay their taxes. I have heard successive Ministers say the immigrants have increased the competitiveness of our economy, yet when the chips are down and they need a little help to tide them over the Christmas period, we apply the habitual residence clause, wish them good luck and give them nothing. This is not right.

Compare the circumstances of these immigrants with those of our relations and everybody in this House who worked abroad in different periods, especially in Britain. The way they were treated in Britain in terms of welfare and housing puts us to shame. When our economy has lifted and we have a few bob, people who paid into the insurance fund, which contains a great deal of money, are told: "Goodnight. Get out. We do not want to know." That is not good enough. I would be frowned upon if I said that in a Christian country we should do something like that, and that this is what we are about. We are supposed to be a hospitable people yet we turn the hard hand on these people, and tell them that we have this rule. It is not good enough.

Will the Minister reconsider the issue of long-term and short-term payments? Unemployment benefit runs out after 15 months and recipients must find some other income, which is fine, as many of those on unemployment benefit move on to another payment or find work. However, a terrible anomaly arises in that disability benefit is classified as a short-term payment. As such, recipients do not get the Christmas bonus or the child dependant payment while a child is at college. If they happen to be unfortunate enough that they require unemployment benefit for the period when a child is at college, they are given the run around and will not get the payment. That is not fair. It bears repeating — the school teacher in me is coming out — that unemployment benefit comes from the social insurance fund, which contains almost €2 billion. These people paid their insurance so why are they not entitled to the payment?

I am harping on many of these issues because I am very conscious that Deputy Penrose is present. As he is a prospective future Minister for Social and Family Affairs, it will save me saying this to him at that time.

See this speech in context