Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

This is a sad issue. The person in question is a migrant worker who was working here until September 2005. Owing to personal circumstances she had to change employment and is now seeking further employment. She would be an ideal client for an employment scheme while in receipt of family income supplement at some stage in the future. This person has at least one child and is living on charity at present.

It is sad that someone who has worked here and paid contributions and whose circumstances change is no longer wanted by us and must go back home. I do not blame the Minister of State but it is a shame his colleague, the Minister with responsibility for the area, did not reply to this matter. I would be interested in hearing his reply. We all deal with countless cases of this nature, some of them heart-rending, involving people who are very vulnerable, in a difficult situation and in need of a helping hand. We pride ourselves on our charity and our economy but this case deserves the personal attention of the Minister.

The woman applied on 7 November for one-parent family allowance and, two months later, on 16 January, she received a reply to her application. The letter stated that it had been decided that she did not satisfy the condition of being habitually resident in the State because she had not resided in the State or part of the common travel area continuously for the past two years. She did for 18 months. The letter further stated she had no stable pattern of employment in the State. That is not true. She has been employed since she has been in the State. The letter continues that she has resided outside the State all her life. Given that this applies to many people currently in the State, I have serious doubts about the validity of this response. The letter further states that she has retained links abroad by way of retention of a financial account. If all those Irish people who went abroad and retained financial accounts here were treated in such a fashion, we would be very upset. I ask the Minister to consider this.

The letter further states that the future intentions of the woman in question with regard to the length of her stay here are short term. That is debatable. I know people can be inspired and the Minister of State, the Chair and I will have met many of them but I do not believe inspiration would be sufficient to make such a determination given that one does not know what will be a person's circumstances in future.

The letter then states that, from the evidence provided, there is nothing to substantiate that the woman in question is habitually resident in the State. Based on the statements made in this letter one would wonder whether the person truly exists. I would have asked that question if I had not had the woman introduced to me by another individual who was aware of her circumstances and pleaded with me to find out if anything could be done to secure a social welfare payment for her to tide her over the immediate problem until efforts could be made to secure a place for her on a community employment scheme.

See this speech in context