Brendan Ryan (Labour)

Senator Norris is not currently in the Chamber but earlier he was giving us lectures about not being too political concerning these matters. Given his capacity to politicise the most extraordinary things, however, I am not sure about that.

I accept the movement of people within the European Union, particularly the expanded EU, is an issue that needs to be sorted out but it deserves to be done by proper analysis. I want to ask the Minister about the concept of habitual residence. How does she propose to justify under European law a discrimination between how we deal with citizens of the United Kingdom and others? I emphasise the term "under European law", so let us forget about the British-Irish common travel areas. How does she propose to justify treating citizens of the United Kingdom differently from citizens of France and Denmark, for example, leaving alone the accession countries for the moment?

What about people who are here because we essentially invited them to come to do jobs that we can not get others to do? One part of the Government says that we have to accept, welcome and encourage immigration because of demographics and our extraordinary economic growth. It is a fact that there are employment sectors which are predominantly staffed by people who in some cases are non-nationals of the existing or expanded EU, and in other cases are nationals of the existing EU. Since we have an unemployment rate of 4.4%, if such people do not come here businesses will suffer dramatically. What will happen to these people if, after six months here they find themselves out of a job? Are we asking them to come here first and then telling them to go home? They will not do so, unless they are covered by social insurance in their own countries. I am intrigued to know what will happen to Danish people, for example, who do not have a social insurance scheme, do not pay PRSI and where funding is through taxation. Will Danish citizens be therefore treated differently?

I have three questions. First, what is the position on the anomaly relating to countries such as Denmark? Second, will the Minister clarify the discrimination between citizens of one EU country and the rest of the EU? I fully accept the State is entitled to treat everybody else as badly as it treats its own citizens but I do not accept the State is entitled to treat the citizens of 23 countries one way and the citizens of one country on its own another way. That is discrimination.

Third, how many other member states require habitual residence before parents are entitled to child benefit or its equivalent? My secretary contacted the embassies of member states in Dublin regarding the issue of child benefit. I am not playing poor mouth on this because I do not have the resources of the Department but my secretary and I could not find a member state which applies a habitual residence requirement for entitlement to child benefit. Anybody who is legally entitled to reside in Germany or the Netherlands is entitled to apply for child benefit immediately, according to the information supplied by their embassies. Why is the State dealing with this issue differently? Why is it saying to immigrants who travel with children or who have children when they are here, "You are different, you are not entitled to child benefit. We want you to work and pay taxes here but you are not entitled to child benefit for two years."?