Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The statistic is welcome in terms of a reduction but we know there are people in situfor more than three years in some instances. I continue to engage, with colleagues in my own office, with our local support group. We have a direct provision centre in my home town and I am conscious of the circumstances they have to face each day.

In his preamble, referencing the Act, Mr. Kirrane stated: "It introduced a single application procedure in the protection process with the key aim of identifying those eligible for protection at a much earlier stage and ensuring that those found not to have a protection need can be returned to their country of origin in a timely and humane manner." I would have liked to have seen a sentence that referenced those who were not being returned in a timely and humane manner and that people were being looked after, processed and provided for in a timely and humane manner. It would be remiss of me if I did not tell the officials that those involved in the voluntary community action and support for people in direct provision in my home town, which is a host community, find the slowness of the system unacceptable. Some would use other language such as dilatory et al. I have heard it all and engage with it regularly. There is great vexation and frustration about that and we would fail in our duty if we did not properly reflect that to the officials. We are talking about people here.

While there are some voices I strongly disagree with or totally disapprove of, the overwhelming majority in my community are supportive, welcoming and anxious to see people treated as they would wish for themselves or their families in any comparable situation globally. That, sadly, is not the experience in the service. This, as was said, is related to recruitment and everything else. We need to reach a point where the targets set are met within the timeframe set. There can be no drift on that. This committee will certainly take a keen interest in it.

Let me finish before letting Deputy Chambers back in. Deputy Daly referred to a case concerning cancellation after notification to present for a ceremony of naturalisation involving the presentation of certificates. I do not know who present is aware of an individual I have been representing whose case I brought to the Minister's attention in writing only some time ago. His ceremony was cancelled not only once but twice. It is incredible that somebody could be invited to a ceremony in the full understanding that he would be gifted with naturalisation, only to have the invitation withdrawn and be told not to present. Some time later, the individual received a new invitation to a second ceremony, but this was followed by yet another cancellation. What does that say to the person and the community to which he belongs? Those concerned are all part of little communities in which they fraternise, engage with one another and take strength from one another. On behalf of the person in the case in question, I am so vexed. It is deplorable to do to anybody what was done.

I engaged with the Minister for Justice and Equality, to whom the immigration service is responsible, and provided to him the full details, facts and evidence in this particular case. He advised me — I am saying this on public record — that an apology will have to be issued in this instance. I do even have an acknowledgment of that representation as I sit here facing the officials today. I know the Minister has engaged with them or their staff, yet the gentleman I have represented and I, as an elected public representative and Chairman of this committee, have not even been extended the courtesy of an acknowledgement, never mind an explanation, despite the Minister saying an apology was required in this case. When will this case be addressed substantively and resolved? I hope that the gentleman in question will be lucky on the third occasion and that there will be no more messing about in this instance.