Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is really not on. The rationale is somewhat concerning and does not reflect the generally good approach of the Minister of State to these issues. Deputy Wallace is right: the conflation of our need to provide services to refugees and asylum seekers alongside the housing crisis and all the other problems does indeed contribute to the racist view that refugees and migrants are the cause of these problems. The Minister of State may want to go back and look to whoever wrote the speech for him, because it was heading in that direction.

I am appalled by the fact that our Government is congratulating Ireland and the fact that we have managed to pick up the E3 visas the Australians are not going to use. These American visas were negotiated with the Australian Government in thanks and recognition for the help the Australians gave the Americans in the Iraq war. We are congratulating ourselves that we are going to be given access to the visas that the Australians do not use. Yet, we are not going to provide refuge or family reunification for the victims of the Iraq war. This Government will not do that.

I will set out some examples. The example given by Deputy Wallace related to the 18 year old who was from Syria. The Minister of State is absolutely right in that a Syrian in that situation could apply under the humanitarian scheme because he is from one of the top ten countries. He could fight it out and he may or may not get it. However, if that young man was from Iraq, he would not get it. He would not be on the list. The Minster of State asked me for an example of the scenario and said he would deal with such cases. I will set out the scenario for the Minister of State. It is clear from the Act. It states that where the sponsor is under 18 and not married, then his or her parents and their children who, on the date of the application, are under the age of 18 years can come. By default, it is perfectly clear that if the person is not under 18 years, he cannot bring his parents because nowhere else in the text is there mention of parents. The point is that if someone comes here who is under the age of 18 years, he or she cannot get status before that and so the person cannot bring his or her parents.

I am not going to repeat the examples given but the Minister of State is wrong to point out that the Act was passed by a big majority in this House. As Deputy Rabbitte correctly said, it was passed by a big majority in the House but now we have seen the consequences of that Act. We have seen some of the problems that it has caused for families on the basis of the scientific study done by Roisin Hynes.

The examples I gave earlier are real. One relates to a Syrian who came here. By the time he found his daughter – she was a 19 year old – he could not bring her here because 12 months had elapsed. An African woman in direct provision was there for so long that one of her daughters was 20 years of age when she went to make the application. Her younger children would not come because they did not want to leave the 20 year old on her own. I referred to the granny left in Greece. These are real cases. They are not made up.

We are not talking about major numbers. It is completely wrong for the Minister of State to talk about an open-ended scheme and broadening the definition. He referred to a drain on resources and how houses and so on will have to be provided. I think this Bill should be amended because it is too restrictive. We all talking about dependants. A dependant is not going to require a separate house. We are talking about small numbers of people. All we are looking for is reinstatement of the scheme that was in place previously. Under that scheme, on average, two people applied with every family. Thus, it is not true to say this will cause a vast drain on the resources.

It is also not true to say that the humanitarian scheme is a better scheme. For starters, we do not oppose it. The Minister of State can have the humanitarian scheme. No one is objecting to that. It is fine. If the Minister of State thinks it is brilliant and that it is working, then he should carry on. Bringing in this legislation will not stop him from doing that. However, this measure will give more opportunity. That scheme is limited to 530 places. It is rather restrictive even in the context of the small numbers of refugees to which we have given asylum. If a person is from Iraq or is a Shia in Bahrain who is being persecuted or is a person in Yemen, then it is tough luck. Such people are not covered by the humanitarian scheme. It is only those from the top ten countries. Other people are excluded. The people who came here under 18 years of age are excluded as well. They cannot bring their parents. We are condemning them to remain here alone.

The Minister of State said to Deputy Rabbitte that, apart from the humanitarian scheme in respect of which all the people I mentioned cannot apply, others can come here under the non-EEA national permit. A person must earn €30,000 per year to avail of that scheme. It is not really accessible to someone who comes here seeking asylum. Such people are not really in that jobs market or on that type of money. That is not an avenue for these vulnerable people. It is disingenuous of the Minister of State to say as much.

I totally agree with the points made by Deputy Ó Snodaigh. He said the idea that we are ahead of the posse and to the forefront on these initiatives is absolutely ridiculous.

The Minister of State referred to the remit of Operation Sophia. Finally, we managed to get the Minister of State with responsibility for Defence to admit it is a military operation. It is written in the terms of the Act that it is a military operation. Doctors Without Borders representatives told the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Defence that the operation is helping the Libyan coast guard to return people to rape, slavery, torture and murder. That is the purpose of the operation. If the Minister of State is proud of that, then fair play to him, but I am utterly ashamed of it. I am particularly ashamed of it because we are complicit given that we allow use of Shannon for many of the wars that displace these people in the first place.

I was going to make numerous points about where we have let people down. One relates to unaccompanied minors that we have let down in the past. They came into our care system. We should remember that 454 separated children in Ireland went missing in Ireland between 2000 and 2008. Only 58 ever turned up. There is suspicion of them being pimped and trafficked and so on. Obviously, that situation improved when we changed the system and we ensured those accompanied minors were not brought to hostels but accommodated with families and linked up with social workers and so on. We have a good scheme now for that so the numbers were impacted. We have learned from the mistakes of the policies that we put in place. That is what we want the Minister of State to do in this case.

It is a fact that the only people who can be included now are people who are under 18 years of age, spouses and children under 18 years of age. The Government is leaving out many vulnerable dependants. We are talking about small numbers. If we could get this to Committee Stage, I would like to see the measures extended. I will offer as an example the case of a family that I am friendly with. The family includes a young man who came here when he was under 18 years of age. He is still under 18 years. His mother and his younger brother have joined him. His older brother is the only person left. He is at home on his own and they are all over here. Under this Bill, even if it was passed, I do not believe he would qualify. How could I say that the brother left at home is dependent on a 17 year old who is the unaccompanied minor? That is how restrictive this Bill is. As Senator Kelleher has said, it is an incredibly modest proposal. It will not even deal with many of the families who we would like to help to reunite. It sends altogether the wrong signal if the Government does not go back between now and next Thursday, when this will be voted upon, to look at it again. This applies in particular to the Minister of State, who has been to the forefront on these issues. Much of the criticism by the Minister of State of Deputy Rabbitte was wrong and factually inaccurate in terms of what the legislation provides for now. Again, the Minister of State has hidden behind the humanitarian scheme. No one is asking the Minister of State to replace the humanitarian scheme. We are asking the Minister of State to go back and recognise the proper definition of family for the purposes of reunification under the International Protection Act.

I appeal to the Minister of State to go back and look at it again. If the Minister of State really believes that he wants to help people, then he should go back and look at the facts. We are talking about small numbers of people who have been caught in that trap. We are talking about dependency. We are talking about vulnerable people. We will be leaving them high and dry if this Bill does not progress.

This Bill will progress and it will be passed by this House, but blocking it with a money message would be particularly disingenuous, especially in light of the point made by Deputy Ó Snodaigh that the system of money messaging will change soon. How many families will be destroyed in the meantime?

See this speech in context