Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 39, after line 39, to insert the following:
"17. Section 221 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of a new subsection (9) as follows:"(9) Child benefit in respect of a child resident in an EU country other than in Ireland shall be paid at the rate of child benefit that applies in that EU country, provided that the rate is lower than the rate of child benefit that applies in Ireland.".".

Once again, I welcome the Minister to the House. This amendment arises out of a perception that is widespread in this country that we are over-generous in the payment of child benefit to non-Irish nationals who are working in this country. Essentially, it attempts to try to level the playing field to some degree. Irish citizens living in EU member states and who are eligible for and apply for child benefit in those countries receive the prevailing rate in those countries. We have one of the highest child benefit rates in the EU which came about as a result of the Celtic tiger era. I remember talking with a former Minister who told me that between 2003 and 2009, social welfare benefits increased by some 900% when the inflation rate was only 13%. It puts the Government of the time into stark relief in terms of its excesses. Everybody said it was great and wonderful, applauded it and wanted more. Let us be brutally frank about it. Ultimately, the buck stops with the Government because it was the one which did it, irrespective of who was cheering it on from the sidelines. The reality is that we and the Minister are now faced with that legacy because of all that has happened in the past five years.

This is an attempt to try to re-balance things and possibly an opportunity for the Minister to outline how that structure works in practice and what its impact is across the EU in terms of how many recipients are in this country, how much money goes out of the country to be paid to EU citizens and how many Irish citizens are benefiting abroad. My impression is that not that many are benefiting relative to those who are benefiting from it in this country. I do not want to labour the point. Essentially, that is the objective of the amendment. Hopefully, it is a helpful gesture to the Minister because if was to be implemented, it would ultimately result in savings.