Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I want to acknowledge the support of Deputy Daly. In respect of the questions raised, the position of nine months was a decision that Government took having regard to the situation across Europe. The Deputy mentioned a number of countries that have a different timescale. We were conscious here of the situation in our nearest neighbour in Britain. I refer in particular to Brexit and having regard to the common travel area and the common travel arrangements that we intend to see continuing after the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union. Nine months was considered appropriate in order to ensure that we were in a position to manage that situation adequately and properly. I refer to our numbers and the new regime.

There will be an appeal process. Once a decision has been made, and once that decision is under appeal, it is not considered likely that during that appeal process the right to work will be applicable. The decision has been made within the period of nine months. I would like to keep the timeframe to an absolute minimum and ensure that every effort would be made, in the context of the legal position, to have a decision made within a period of nine months. That decision would be conclusive. After a period of nine months, should a decision not be forthcoming, then the right to work would apply.

There is no requirement on foot of the Supreme Court decision to extend access to the social welfare system to applicants for international protection. However, the Deputy will be aware that, under the existing arrangements, international protection applicants with a right to seek employment may have an entitlement to the following social protection supports. That is the family income supplement for families with children, payment of PRSI by persons in employment, leading over time to eligibility to other benefits such as jobseekers benefit, illness benefit, invalidity and access to public employment services.

I refer to the question of working applicants making a contribution toward the cost of the direct provision. There is the implementation group that I have mentioned. This issue is currently being examined by that implementation group. The intention is that a reasonable approach would be adopted, taking into account the position of applicants in direct provision accommodation. I refer also to the needs of the wider workforce. Should this committee wish to make a submission to the implementation group, I am sure that will be given due consideration. I would be happy to keep the committee informed.

On the matter of the payment or the entitlement, this will be examined by the implementation group.