Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Good afternoon. I thank everyone for their honesty and for their time. Much has been covered but I want to return to what Mr. O'Dwyer said about waiting lists on appeals and such matters. It struck me straight away and it reminds me of the local housing issue. Even though between 1,600 and 1,700 people are waiting, in the next month there will be an influx of more. If that list is not going down, which it clearly is not, we could be back here in 12 months and the witnesses may be saying there are 3,400 people on appeal. I am looking at this and making comparisons with other sectors in society where there are waiting lists, in particular in the health system and in housing. We know what the problems are. Many of our witnesses spoke about how we could resolve these problems.

It is a question of resources, obviously. I cannot understand why people must wait so long. Mr. O'Dwyer mentioned waiting two years for a first decision. It is like going for a job interview and being told they will get back to you in two years so you should sit around and do nothing. That system is mind-boggling. When we have people like the witnesses appear before committees, we learn of this and at least it then is getting into the public domain. A lot of stuff here is about information versus misinformation.

What Professor Lynch spoke about there always strikes me as well in respect of the majority of people who seek asylum in our country. Our reputation is as a welcoming and a so-called prosperous nation. The witnesses rightly said many of these people come from unbelievable turmoil, abuse and war. They are damaged when they come in here and the first thing they face when they walk in, hoping it will be to open arms, is a block wall and problems. Obviously, with these people being so damaged, trust is a massive issue. They have reached out for help but we basically are saying we cannot do it, not now. That is a massive bar and it really worries me.

The vulnerability assessment should be a no-brainer. They are not coming here for a holiday; they are coming because it is necessity. Professor Lynch is right that bringing families together grounds people and gives them a sense of security. We have heard other witness statements in this committee about direct provision and how people feel trapped in there. A number of people there are qualified doctors, nurses, people who drove buses, you name it. We have heard repeatedly in other committees that employers cannot get or retain staff. It is like the proverbial greyhound. The bell is after ringing, the hare is running and they cannot get out of the trap to involve themselves in society. We will see that more.

I think Professor Lynch mentioned an example in Waterford but if something is working, why can we not target that as a pilot project? We have an awful habit here of trying to fix something that is not broken. If there is a system that works and is well resourced, that can be modelled and mirrored around the country. My big issue, and I have seen it in the mental health system over the years, is that we are trying to do it all together and we know we do not have the resources. However, we have the information and the witnesses have it. Target the most vulnerable first and whatever the most demand is and reduce that. When it is proved that it is working, it is easy for Ministers to buy into it.

To turn to something slightly different, before the onset of Covid my home town of Midleton used to hold a food festival. I think the last one was three years ago. There is much diversity of culture in most towns, villages and cities now. Someone had the brainchild to bring all the people who had gone through the asylum process into the community hall and showcase their traditional food. There were people from Palestine, Kenya and all over the world. The interaction between members of the public and families gave a sense we were all in it together. Nobody judged anybody. We made good friends. A week or two later, a lady delivered a special dish to my house because I had talked about it so much. It is interaction. What I am trying to say about interaction is that the more information we get out, the more mistruths we will dispel. There is always an attitude of asking, "Why are they coming into this country? Why should they get a house before I get a house?"

It is about harmonisation to the point where we as a collective group, we as politicians and the witnesses as members of whatever organisation that is trying to do the right thing, find out how to get a louder voice in order to say, "Look lads, this is the reality here, this is what should be happening, this is what is not happening and this is what has to be done". I know it comes down to money, which Mr. Kirwan spoke very frankly about. Everyone says it is about money. As Mr. Kirwan said, it is not always about money; sometimes it is a case of penny wise and pound foolish. We see a lot of that and we should move away from it.

I am very interested in the fact that Ireland, as a signatory to the Convention of the Rights of the Child, recognises "the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development". Why is that not happening? That is a very straight question. If we signed up to a convention, which includes Europe, why are Europeans not coming in on it? Why is there no joined-up thinking between all the ombudsmen? As was stated, it is not always about children. It could be about issues of justice, health or education.

Is there a possibility in the future of having a national conference on this issue where all stakeholders are brought together? When I say stakeholders, in committees we are used to hearing people saying "bring in the expert". Not to take away from anybody's expertise, but the real experts are the people who lived it and who are seeking asylum in this country. I do not like the word "asylum". It should be about people seeking sanctuary. We are, as a nation, very welcoming. We are a nation that has, possibly, forgotten that emigration is definitely part of our history. We travelled to many parts of the world. We may not always have been welcomed but in the majority of places we were. We built up and contributed to society.

I believe, through listening to the witnesses' statements today, and those of others, that these people have an awful lot to offer this country and society. We should be working together, collectively, to drive this forward. This craic of having thousands and thousands of people waiting is like saying to them that they will be waiting two years before we ask for their names, we might try to find out what their situation is in the meantime, and there could be delays in that, but they should not worry about it because there is an appeals process, which could take three years, if they are still around. If that was any job interview, the system would be stripped, taken down and a new plan put in place.

I will ask one question. I am always straight to the point and fairly blunt when I talk about this issue. This is a humanitarian, human rights, justice, health and education issue, yet we seem to be bouncing from pillar to post when it comes to individual Ministers. We are very lucky to have a committee that can discuss it. I would love to discuss it further. When we come up with a national plan, like everything it will be down to resources. However, can the witnesses pick a county and say to Minister X, Y or Z that the model there is working? It might be short a little but if we can prove that this model is in pristine condition there is less servicing in it. It is like a car. It does not cost more if you spend prudently at the start. Can the witnesses pick a model anywhere in the country that is working at present that we could see or visit, and then ask the Minister if we could replicate it? You have to be a realist; we know it will not happen overnight. However, what if the witnesses could get a commitment that we will stick to model A that we saw in a County A and that in 12 months' time we could guarantee there will be another model A in County B and we will keep replicating that? As it is replicated, the issues of waiting lists, assessments and vulnerability are resolved. At the same time, that takes pressure off on the legal side. I am very worried about the legal issue because it is, again, very lengthy. I cannot understand why.

I know you cannot just get a case officer on every individual who comes in, but there should be something like a revolving door within certain systems whereby when an individual or family comes in the door, all these pieces are put in place. There should be a vulnerability assessment. I am extremely worried as well about anybody coming here with a disability. That strikes me because we have been lagging behind in disability services for years in this country. I am thinking of people coming here totally traumatised and not being able to find even the common, basic understanding that one's individual needs and basic individual rights must be listened to. I am thinking of someone who may not be able to go up a flight of stairs and who therefore needs to be in a place that is suitable for him or her. I think of that a lot and it worries me.

I do not want to take up any more time but I ask the witnesses to respond just to that little question. If there exists a model they could pick out and replicate, where is it? How could we as committee members work in tandem with the witnesses and Ministers to try to put pressure on the latter and to say, "This model works and we need to replicate it", such that we keep replicating it and eventually the fire is put out.