Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

This Bill promised to ensure asylum seekers were treated with respect and humanity within a framework of more efficient immigration procedures and safeguards. While Sinn Féin welcomes these attempts, the Bill fails to achieve those aims. It fails to embed the principle of the best interests of the child and the attendant weaknesses which will potentially expose children to harm.

It fails to prevent the risk that wrong decisions will be made without adequate checks and balances and a right of redress. It fails in respecting the rights of refugees to obtain family reunification, vital if refugees are to be able to re-establish themselves in Ireland and settle in to their new communities. Sinn Féin submitted 45 amendments to the Bill in the Seanad in order to address these issues amongst many others, but the speed with which the Bill is being pushed through the Oireachtas does not inspire any confidence that the Government is taking the rights of the most vulnerable people seriously.

This Bill introduces a single procedure for applicants seeking international protection, but it is a single procedure that will lead to the most vulnerable failing to obtain the protections they need. Like the leading NGOs which work directly with those seeking international protection, Sinn Féin cannot support the passage of this legislation as it now stands.

There is an obsession by those who propose this legislation and are rushing it through these Houses that the introduction of a single procedure is inherently good. They have repeated it ad infinitum. However, a single procedure is only good if it is based on solid grounds that reflect international norms and the laws that are based on those norms. This Bill introduces a single procedure but it is a single procedure that can be used by the Minister for Justice and Equality to deport those most vulnerable who are in need of protection more quickly.

When asked why the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, wished to pass this legislation so speedily through these Houses, he stated that he felt fearful. The Minister of State feared that the next Government would not deal with the pressing issue of introducing an efficient procedure for those applicants seeking international protection. That fear is understandable; however, such fear leads to rushed decisions that may do more harm than good. Whilst the Minister of State may repeat that the legislation is based on law that currently reflects protection principles, such as the best interests of the child principle, he must be aware that where legislation is not clear and where it does not provide certainty, it will end up being open to abuse where counsel do not bring it to the appropriate forum and where the adjudicator is unaware of its existence.

Legislation is neither effective nor efficient when it does not clarify the law and where it may lead to legal uncertainty. That is what this legislation does. Its success rests on the belief that applicants will spend a maximum of six months before their application is accepted or rejected at first instance, and yet no such timeframe is present in law.

Sinn Féin also submitted a reasonable amendment to the Bill in the Seanad that would allow personal circumstances to be taken into account in regard to reporting requirements. The Minister stated that this is, in fact, what happens in practice so there is no need to codify it in this Bill. That is astoundingly naïve. There is no valid reason that the amendment could not have been accepted by the Government. It would allow pregnant applicants to attend hospital appointments, certain in the knowledge that reporting requirements would be relaxed. It would allow children in school to freely attend sporting and educational competitions away from home without fear that such reporting requirements may prevent them doing so. That minor amendment would reduce fear in vulnerable persons seeking protection and, indeed, state what the Minister states takes place in practice. Rejection of it ensures legal uncertainty remains for the most vulnerable of international protection applicants.

I will turn to the claim made in the Seanad on Monday last that most of civil society and the NGOs backed this legislation. Either this was intentionally misleading or, more likely, the Seanadóir concerned had not listened to what the NGOs were actually saying on the published Bill. Either way, it does not inspire confidence in how well-thought out the legislation is.

The NGOs to which the Seanadóir referred stated quite clearly that they want this legislation withdrawn. I will restate that position here so that we are all clear as to the position of Doras Luimní, the Irish Refugee Council, Migrant Rights Centre Ireland and Nasc. Those parties, which are experts in this area and have the best interests of those seeking international protection, want this legislation withdrawn. Ms Sue Conlan, CEO of the Irish Refugee Council, stated:

A single procedure will not cure the problems in the Irish asylum system unless there are proper safeguards in place which protect asylum seekers from cursory examination of their applications and a swift move towards deportation. The outcome of passage of the Bill, as it stands, will lead to people being at risk of being returned to persecution or serious harm and refugees separated from family members. This will be at the time of the biggest refugee crisis since the Second World War.

Ms Fiona Finn, CEO of Nasc and a member of the Government's working group on the protection process which reported at the end of June, stated:

The Minister claims that the Bill implements the key recommendations of the Working Group, this is simply not true. With the exception of the single procedure, the Minister has cherry picked a handful of the more conservative recommendations and ignored any positive recommendations, such as the right to work, early identification of vulnerable applicants, and the application of the Best Interests of Child principle for all asylum seeking children. In addition, the Bill erodes rights to family reunification and brings in harsher detention measures. The single procedure is necessary to improve the protection system, but not at this cost.

Ms Leonie Kerins, director of Doras Luimní, stated:

We are extremely concerned with the speed at which the Bill has been progressed. We see this as a deliberate attempt to prevent proper debate on the more alarming areas of the legislation. This legislation is an opportunity to address the failures of the current system and to bring Ireland in line with international practice and the Common European Asylum System in particular.

The Government, in particular Labour, should account for the blatant disregard with which it is treating the democratic structures of this State.

Labour claims that, "Labour has changed Ireland for the better, and has made our country a more modern, equal and progressive place for everybody". Such hypocrisy. It is an insult to introduce this Bill on Human Rights Day. Is modernity reflected in the intrusive medical examinations on children in the absence of their consent that are facilitated in this Bill? Is equality reflected in the fact that victims of domestic violence are equally fearful of reporting violence inflicted by their partner in case it removes them from basic legal protections and opens up the appalling possibility of deportation? With regard to progressivity, this Bill reflects that persons seeking protection are seeing a progressive removal of minimum humane standards of international law.

In the Statement of Government Priorities 2014-2016, the Government committed to treating asylum seekers with the humanity and respect they deserve. The speed with which this Bill is being subjected to scrutiny puts shame to that claim. It is a shame that these Houses will not be afforded the length of time needed to rectify these oversights or incorporate the expert opinions available to make a difference to individual asylum seekers.

Sinn Féin stands in solidarity with the weakest in our society. Sinn Féin concurs with the opinions expressed by the experts and the Irish Refugee Council, Nasc, Migrant Rights Centre Ireland and Spirasí. I commend these organisations in their work and recognise their input into this debate. They are part of the wider democratic process and it is a pity the submissions they made on this Bill were not used to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of our legislative process.

As I stated recently on the Garda Síochána (Policing Authority and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2015, I believe that, historically, the Department of Justice and Equality has been a conservative Department that has been resistant to progress change and that this issue of the need for the State to tackle the issue of direct provision centres for asylum seekers has been significantly curtailed. The issues those who hold right-wing views around asylum seekers and related matters would want addressed are speedy decision-making and deportation but those who are progressive in this State would want a supportive reaction for asylum seekers to reflect our history.

What is the history of our State? What is the history of this island? Ireland is the only country in the world that has a population lower than it was in the early 1800s.

It is due to mass emigration in the past couple of hundred years, not just during the period of the Great Famine in the mid-1800s but throughout our history up to recent times. In recent years, 500,000 residents and citizens of the State emigrated from counties such as mine and others throughout the west of Ireland to Canada, Australia and, in lesser numbers than before, Britain and America.

A famous book written in the 1980s revealed that in the 65 years following the creation of the State, half of those who survived childhood emigrated. Our history is one of mass emigration, not as asylum seekers but as economic migrants. We have heard many speeches from Deputies on all sides, and rightly so, about the undocumented Irish and the need for us to give them the right to come home for occasions such as weddings and funerals if they wish, and then return to the US to work. However, our response to people in fear of their lives coming here from countries that have been devastated by wars, dictatorships and oppressive regimes, many of which were created or supported by the interventions of the West, has not been humane and respectful but shameful.

In my capacity as Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions, I examined, along with colleagues, the direct provision system over a period of months. We visited the centres and met dozens of asylum seekers. Our report, which was endorsed by all parties, is very clear that the system is unfit for purpose and must be brought to an end. We cannot have adults and children languishing in receipt of €19 per week and €9 per week, respectively. We cannot have 4,500 applicants, of whom half are children, in the centres. Children grow up for years without being taught to cook and the basic things that happen in families are denied to them. The system is a betrayal of the otherwise decent approach of our people.

A number of years ago, Ireland made the highest per capitacontribution to overseas development aid in the world. We have a proud legacy of overseas aid. Irish citizens' per capitacontributions to charity organisations that work overseas is probably among the highest in the world. Irish people have a decent approach in their financial contributions, through their Government or personally, to overseas development aid in the very countries from which asylum seekers are coming. Yet our system has abandoned asylum seekers to direct provision for the past 15 years. There has been no legislation, or legislation has not been used, to address the issue. When we saw the images of the drowned child on the beach, we all said we needed to do something about it, to up our game, to step up to the plate and to honour our legacy.

The legislation is a major disappointment. The Minister should not take my word for it, given that I am far from the most important contributor on the issue. She should take the word of the NGOs that work with refugees. Those who work for the organisations in question are intelligent, thoughtful people who know our obligations under international law. They are very clear that the Bill should be withdrawn. Withdraw the Bill. The remaining Stages are scheduled to be taken next week. The Minister should take the opportunity to withdraw the Bill, take time out, return in the new year and make it a Bill worthy of the name. When she does that, she will be met with a response in kind, not just from me but other members of the Opposition who are saying it is not good enough and that it is not the response that was demanded by the Irish people after we saw the images from the beach. I ask the Minister and her Department to reflect on what we are saying, to withdraw the Bill and bring forward a Bill worthy of the name.

See this speech in context