Mr. Brian Killoran:

I will follow on from the points Mr. Neenan and Sr. Keenan made about domestic violence circumstances, which we concur with. There are a couple of other elements I would also like to highlight. One is that a lot of the issues that emanate in this area come from the fact that our immigration system essentially ties one person's status to another in instances of family reunification. In the vast majority of cases, the man whose immigration status is that of the "primary migrant" on a work permit or some type of immigration status, his partner joins him as a dependent spouse under stamp 3 conditions. Their right to remain in the State is contingent on their continuing relationship. When relationships break down because of domestic violence, it puts the spouse's right to remain in the State in question. This is not only an issue of a lack of clarity as regards their continued residency in the State, but it is also used as an element of control by abusive partners who say that if their spouse goes to the police or immigration agency, she will be deported and that she is only here because she is in a relationship with the partner. This is used as an element of coercion.

Organisations like ours have worked throughout the years in support of migrant women primarily, not exclusively, in domestic violence circumstances to convince them that they must get out of the situation they are in for their own safety. They can then approach the Minister at whose discretion they may be granted a status to remain in the State. Some 99% of the time that application to the Department of Justice is successful and we have to commend the Department in those circumstances. In the vast majority of cases, it issues an independent status to someone who is in a domestic violence circumstance. Generally, that information is not publicly known. One would have to dig on the Department of Justice's website to find the little information note that refers to the independent status for victims of domestic violence. It does not refer to a piece of legislation. It does not refer to a statuary instrument or an official piece of policy. It is an information note on the website. There are a significant number of missed opportunities for supporting people. They may come to an organisation such as ours and get that support and have their hand held to go through that process, but how many do not?

Let us look at the difference between those who come to our services and the number ringing the Women's Aid national helpline who are migrant women, which is a bigger number than those who are accessing our services. There is a large gap there as Deputy Cairns correctly said and I thank her for mentioning it. We ran an information session around the "We Are Here Too" campaign which is migrant women-led. It is a campaign about trying to bridge the gap between marginalised migrant women and the domestic violence services available. A lot of good work is going on in that area, but there is a great need to clarify it. We have encountered instances, as Sr. Keenan mentioned, whereby somebody goes into a community welfare officer, who is on stamp 3, has two small kids, whose partner has left having been domestically abusive, and the community welfare officer says that the person is on stamp 3 and is, therefore, not entitled to any payments and does not get anything. We have had to write letters that I would describe as taking the paint off the wall to get that person some kind of emergency support in the immediate term. That should not have to happen. It should not take the intervention of an organisation to come in kicking and screaming to get a payment for somebody. That is not to say that all community welfare officers are doing this. They are not. There is a lot of great work being done in the community as well. There is an inconsistency that is massively problematic.

I do not know if I have time to answer the second bit about bureaucracy and such issues.

I will let the Vice Chairman tell me that and not keep talking.