Victor Boyhan (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome all our guests to this pre-legislative session, which is extremely important. Before I go into this in detail, I thank the witnesses because we owe a great debt of gratitude and thanks to them as advocates in this sector with extensive knowledge. I heard what Ms Heavey said earlier about one of CLM's successful cases, where it did not get support, but that when correspondence was issued, people suddenly started to engage with the group. This is fact. It is happening all the time. I know this myself in the context of advocacy and representations. When an Oireachtas Member writes and sends correspondence simply setting out some key points and asking the recipient to please advise, suddenly there is a call and solutions are found. Officialdom, therefore, seems to push a few doors open somewhere and I presume this is because officials, politicians and advocates, such as the witnesses, have a certain power to shine a light in dark spaces and places. That is a very valuable tool and I commend the witnesses for their work.

I will direct most of my questions to the CLM representatives. My questions are the same for all the organisations and I am directing them to the CLM because it is handy. The organisation has set its points out in a very clear format that I can grasp pretty quickly. Anyone who wishes to comment on my questions is welcome to do so.

What we are hearing loud and clear is that there needs to be voices from migrant communities and people who are in the family, in the broadest sense, and in connection with these people. I would fully support that. I share the concerns of the CLM representatives about the disproportionality they foresee and envisage in that regard, and they might comment on that point.

The issue of the circular is clearly creating problems. At the end of the day, local authorities are being asked to implement aspects of this circular. I am picking up that many local authorities do not have the necessary skill sets and that is not through their own fault when they are dealing with many issues. I would like the witnesses to share their experience because they work closely with local authorities on the ground. They will say things on the record and off the record but they clearly have concerns about this pending legislation and they might share that with us in a general way.

I will touch on some other issues, including the compatibility of the legislation with EU law. Ms Heavey said in her opening statement that CLM is concerned that, "The proposals do not fully reflect EU freedom of movement of law". It is important to ask about that. All of us here may know more because we do this business a lot. People may have tuned in. This meeting will be shown on Oireachtas TV tonight and I am always conscious that the messages are not for the witnesses or for me but for the people outside this room, those who are not in the meeting and will be listening back to it tonight or tomorrow. The witnesses might touch on their concerns about the compatibility of these proposals with EU law.

Ms Heavey also spoke about the importance of the habitual residence condition. She said, "The general scheme does not provide for any equivalent appeals mechanism", as we have touched on. Mr. Stanley, Mr. Allen and a few others have touched on that point. The witnesses might speak to that point because a fundamental aspect of our approach is that we have social justice. We must have an appeals process. It is outrageous that we do not have the mechanism of an appeals process.

Another point I am taking from our engagement today is that no one has a difficulty with the primary legislation. I was interested in previous comments about circulars because a hell of a lot of circulars are dictating many things in this country, as we in the Oireachtas know, and they work when people want them to and do not work when people do not want them to. I do not buy into the concept that it is one or the other. However, I am picking up that everyone is happy that these issues need to be addressed concretely through primary legislation. That is important.

I am conscious that the witnesses need time to reply. Ms Heavey also made reference to "the scope for unintended and unduly harsh consequences". She might spell out some of those consequences. Ms Wall and Ms Heavey might start before we go to the other witnesses. I know there has been a lot in my contribution but I would like a solid and concise reply. I am conscious that the audience is not me but is the people looking on and who do not quite fully understand the nuances of the legislation.