Frances Black (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The right to work has arisen frequently and I am passionate about the issue.

We heard a story a couple of weeks ago from a family man, who said: "All I want to do is work. Just let me come home to my children and tell them I went to work today. I do not even want payment." He just wants to get up in the morning, do a day's work and come home to tell his children what he did. It is for his own pride. Many asylum seekers said they found the process very limited so far and difficult to access. Dr. Thornton mentioned that applicants can work after nine months if no first-instance decision has been received. As I understand it, nine months is the minimum standard allowed under the EU reception conditions directive but there is nothing stopping us setting this at, for example, six months. Am I correct in saying that? Will Dr. Thornton comment?

If we say the right to work is fundamental to human dignity and well-being, why is it only available to those without a first instance decision? Surely if an appeals process is permitted, which can take time, those rightly awaiting an appeal should have just as much of a need to work, provide for their families and use their skills. I also ask about the likelihood of legal action against the State. Dr. Thornton's longer submission focuses on the various fundamental rights that are being denied by the system, such as privacy, autonomy and decision-making, as well as the rights of children. Section D of the submission covers socio-economic rights, which are guaranteed by human rights instruments. We have already seen a limited right to work extended as a result of legal challenge. In Dr. Thornton's view, could we see further legal challenges on human rights grounds? We have a long history in this country of warehousing people, looking back in horror and apologising, and then setting up costly redress schemes. Should the process be repeated here?