Frances Black (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for coming before the committee and for his presentation. I read the briefing document that was circulated to members. This fund is great in the way it is used to support a number of positive integrative initiatives and I strongly welcome it. There is one piece in the briefing document I want to ask about. It mentions "the efficient management of migration flows". I find this wording a little concerning given the context of the EU-backed agreement between Italy and Libya. On paper, the deal between Italy and Libya is in place to manage migration flows but Sally Hayden, a young Irish journalist, recently won an Irish journalism award for her coverage of what it means in practice. She states it is to stop people arriving in Europe. EU money has funded the Libyan coastguard to return thousands of desperate people to war zones and detention centres in contravention of the principle of non-refoulement. One of the four key pillars of the fund up for discussion today is return. In 2017, we spent €3.2 million, approximately €450,000 of which went to a delegated authority in the repatriation unit of INIS. Will the Minister of State provide information on what this money covers? Will he confirm that none will go towards returns to conflict zones that are clearly unsafe, such as Libya?

Based on figures given in response to a parliamentary question in October with regard to the underspend, the fund has been in operation since 2015 and in that period we have spent approximately €6 million. Today we are being asked to roll over a portion of underspent money for another two years, which comes to approximately €4 million. Will the Minister of State expand on why the money was not spent? I know money can still be allocated until 2019 and 2020 but it seems we will still come in under budget. I have worked with fantastic projects on the list of applicants, from football clubs to refugee organisations. Is it the case that not enough organisations are applying? Similarly, if there is an underspend, is there not a case to be made that we could use this extra money to welcome more refugees than the small number already accepted?