Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I, too, welcome the Bill and I welcome the Minister. I have listened to many of the speeches. While I found a number of the speeches enlightening and interesting, I am seriously concerned about some of the statements, particularly from the absent members of the Opposition. The primary purpose of the Bill is to introduce a single procedure for the processing of applications for international protection, which is the term used to describe the protection granted by a state to a refugee or person eligible for subsidiary protection. It is a significant issue in my constituency, in the Louth and Meath area, where a number of people seeking protection are living in Mosney, or have left Mosney and are residing in the community, and still have significant issues regarding stamp 4 visas and family members.

I acknowledge the excellent work the INIS does. Whenever we raise issues regarding people seeking a different status or to have their status recognised, there is a very efficient and professional response. The introduction of a single procedure will address current delays in the protection application system. There are very significant delays and there have been significant increases in the number of people seeking refugee status. Applications for refugee status increased by 53% in 2014, and in February 2015 the number of applications was 138% ahead of the same period in 2014. There is a significant international crisis due to geopolitical events, and many Members have spoken about them. When there is military intervention, from whatever side, in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, it leads to major destabilisation of the lives of ordinary people. Millions of people are refugees as a result of it. I support the view that we should do whatever can be done to support countries that are adjacent to those countries and offer protection to the refugees. I welcome that the EU, the US, Russia and other countries recognise the need to create stability in the locations nearest to the home countries of the refugees in order that when political stability is restored, they are in a position to return. There is an urgent need to do this. There is no point in replacing one evil dictator with another one, as has been done, regrettably, and allowing more of the same.

I agree with the parallels that have been drawn between refugees from Ireland in the 18th and 19th centuries and the refugees who are here now. The millions of Irish people who left our shores in the 18th and 19th centuries went due to extreme poverty at home because they had no education or future and because the only place of hope and opportunity was America. Roman Catholics were a minority in America when they went there first. The Irish people had a different religion, spoke a different language, did not have education and skills and were looked down on and discriminated against for a significant number of years. Only after the American Civil War and the sacrifices Irish people made during it were Irish people fully integrated into American society. Despite this, we have made significant progress in America.

We need to ensure there is continuing progress by refugees who live in our society, who have the right to remain here and whose children are as Irish as anybody else's children. We need to integrate people from the immigrant community into public life. Whoever the next Taoiseach is, I suggest he or she consider appointing somebody from the immigrant community to the Seanad to give them a clear voice in our Parliament to speak with clarity, knowledge and authority about the issues immigrants face as they fully integrate into our society. We often have a difficulty finding a clear voice for immigrants. No doubt immigrant candidates will stand for election. If they are not elected to the Oireachtas, we should ensure and insist they are represented here in order that their views can be taken into account by the Members of the next Dáil.

Some issues have been raised about the Bill. I have received a huge number of e-mails, many of which came from abroad. I do not mind reading e-mails and it is a very important issue. While they all seem to have the same text, the subtext is that people are concerned about issues regarding the legislation, and it is right and proper that we address them. The main advantage of the Bill is that it will create a one-stop-shop. A family that comes here will go through a process at the end of which they will have a clear, definitive decision in a very short time. It will make a significant difference to all the families and the State. The proposed procedures in the Bill are clearly outlined.

The Bill provides for the right of a person granted refugee or subsidiary protection to apply for permission for certain family members to enter and reside in the State, or where a family member is in the State, permission to reside. It is limited to the nuclear family and does not include dependants. I ask the Minister to expand on it on Committee Stage.

I refer to cases in which parents who have dependants have been allowed in. If the mum and dad can come in, I would not have an issue with their dependants coming in as well.

Obviously, the other issue that arises is the question of an alternative permission to remain. When a recommendation is made that an applicant should not be given refugee status or subsidiary protection, and the declaration of the tribunal affirms such a recommendation, the Minister must consider whether to give the applicant permission to remain in the State. This Bill requires the Minister to do certain things in such circumstances. It also requires the interviewer to deal with the issue in a separate way. It provides that an applicant can submit information that is relevant to obtaining permission to remain in the context of the preparation of a report on the matter. This appears to be the only provision in the Bill that expressly allows an applicant to submit representations for permission to remain. This potentially creates a separate process for applying for permission to remain. In doing so, it raises the issue of whether the Bill in fact provides for a single procedure in which each applicant has to make one application only and will have all grounds for seeking international protection, and being permitted to remain in the State, examined and determined in a single process.

Those are the issues with the Bill. I now want to deal with the serious issues that have arisen in relation to children in direct provision. Those issues were addressed, first, by HIQA in its report of November 2014 and subsequently by Tusla in May of this year when it replied to what HIQA had said about them. I compliment HIQA, which is to be commended on the absolute integrity of its reportage, on the conviction and professionalism with which its reports are done and on the decisive and incisive analysis it gives. I would like to read some of its findings on the record:

Data from the Child and Family Agency showed that there were 209 referrals of child protection and welfare concerns about 229 children living in direct provision accommodation in the 12 months between August 2013 and 2014. This represented approximately 14% of the population of children living in direct provision. This is a significantly higher referral rate than for the general child population of 1.6%. Of the 209 referrals, 178 (85%) reached the relevant threshold criteria for an initial assessment. This is considerably higher than the average threshold of 50% of all referrals in 2013 that required initial assessment and [this] requires further analysis by key stakeholders to determine reasons for the disparity.

The report continues:

During fieldwork in four areas, inspectors found common themes arising from welfare concerns including physical or mental illness of parents impacting on their capacity to care for their children, children’s mental health issues, and gaps in the provision of practical support. The child protection concerns included exposure of children to domestic violence, physical abuse due to excessive physical chastisement, protection concerns about older children left caring for younger children, and children being left alone unsupervised.

Of concern were referrals arising from children’s living conditions that were outside of the control of the Child and Family Agency but had resulted in referrals to their service. These included inappropriate contact by adults towards some children in accommodation centres; children sustaining accidental injuries where cramped living conditions were identified as a contributing factor; and exposure of children to violence between residents. Other [issues] from accommodation providers reflected breaches in the rules of the centres such as children left 'home alone' or unsupervised. However, following assessment by social workers, they found that many of these children were left alone for short periods when a lone parent went to queue for laundry or food. To support these children and families, many practitioners provided excellent child-centred services and strived to meet [their] needs ...

For a small number of children, action was not taken to protect them. Cases were closed prematurely and in one area, Louth/Meath, there were significant delays in completing assessments and sharing information, which placed children at risk and some children were not interviewed as part of the assessment process. In this area children did not receive the services they needed, initial assessments were not completed and some risks were not addressed. Inspectors found that on occasion the Reception and Integration Agency moved families for safety reasons but gaps in communication ... at local level meant that this information was not always passed on and, as a result, some social work interventions were delayed or did not happen and potentially placed children at risk.

The quality of the child protection and welfare service ... was inconsistent. The quality and level of service varied across the four areas visited. In Sligo/Leitrim/West Cavan and in Dublin North City a good quality of service was provided to these children and their families, in the Midlands the service was mixed, indicating a variance in the quality of service provided between the two teams, but in Louth Meath, the service was much poorer and some risks had not been identified and addressed by managers.

There was no strategic plan in place to identify and meet the needs of this particularly vulnerable group of children and families. Inspectors found there was no effective mechanism to gather data about these children and there was no process to identify risks to them ... The Child and Family Agency did not collect data on the different ethnic groups referred to their services and ethnicity was not regularly recorded in children’s files. As a result, all of the areas struggled to provide the information requested by the Authority about referrals of children in direct provision accommodation. There was no analysis of emerging trends about referrals or the results of initial assessments in spite of the higher than average rate of referrals ... As a result it was not possible for managers to carry out a needs analysis [that was essential].

The report goes on in significant detail over 30 pages. It goes through all the different issues. As I live in and represent the area of Louth and east Meath, I am concerned to note that Tusla clearly failed in its duty of care to these children. It is not just the children who were failed. The HIQA report states that in the Louth-Meath area, Tusla met just one of the 27 parameters of assessment that child welfare services are required to meet. I met the chief executive and the chief operations officer of Tusla. Since then, I have met a number of people who work in the agency. I acknowledge their acknowledgement of the errors that were made and the failure to provide the supports that should have been there. I acknowledge their response in the action plan, particularly as it relates to children who are in direct provision, which was published on the HIQA website on 26 May last.

I welcome all the significant changes being made by Tusla. We have to ensure it has the support, resources, qualified people and social workers to provide the services that are needed. I do not doubt that Tusla wants to provide such services and that, as an Oireachtas, we want it to do so. We want to ensure all our children are treated equally, regardless of whether they are in Louth and Meath, Cavan and Monaghan or Cork and Kerry. They are all entitled to the same professional supports, standards of care and resources. If financial resources are needed to ensure all our children are kept safe, that must be addressed immediately. I refer specifically today to the children who are in need and at risk in direct provision, as a greater proportion of them are at risk by comparison with the community outside direct provision.

This is a very important Bill. I do not think there is any controversy about the principle of having a one-stop-shop to deal with applications and put them through as quickly as possible. Many people from direct provision have come into my office with their children, who are not children anymore because they are going to university now. I welcome the Government's recent decision to support such students by giving them the same status as Irish-born students. This means they will not have to pay the huge fees that are paid by students from outside the EU. A great deal of progress has been made. The Government is recognising in this legislation that things need to change. They are changing.

Behind all of this are children who are vulnerable and there are more such children than in the average community so we need greater support services to look after them. I look forward to the debate on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context