Roderic O'Gorman (Dublin West, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the Deputies for their contributions. To respond to Deputy Connolly on the breakdown, under the 2014-2020 scheme, Ireland had €55.5 million allocated. I have to hand a copy of the percentages for each of the areas. A total of 30% of the national allocation was spent on asylum, 32% on integration, 22% on return, 5.8% on solidarity and 10% on technical assistance. Under the regulations, that was the requirement for Ireland. Many of the groups she and other Deputies spoke about received their funding allocation coming from those. In my opening remarks, I highlighted a couple of the really good projects that have been financed over the past six years.

Many Deputies spoke with accuracy in regard to the issues with large-scale EU migration and the EU's approach to migration. It is important to recognise what Ireland has done as a country over recent years and particularly during Covid to recognise the crises that exist in regard to our ongoing support for Syrian refugees coming to this country through the IRPP. Just over 550 Syrian refugees came to Ireland in 2021. I had the privilege, and the difficult task, of visiting a Syrian refugee camp in November of last year and saw the conditions in which Syrians have been living there for almost a decade following the civil war. I met Syrians who will be moving to Ireland and starting a new life here and spoke to members of the Jordanian Government, which has done a great deal to offer support. Approximately 20% of the Jordanian population now comprises Syrian refugees, and they are given the same level of social supports and of access to Covid vaccines. I was very impressed with Jordan's support for and solidarity with its neighbours.

We also acted swiftly in the context of Afghanistan. A total of 550 emergency visas have been offered to Afghan citizens. More than 400 Afghans have already come to this country and, again, many throughout the country are being supported through the community sponsorship programme. We fulfilled our commitment towards unaccompanied minors, 28 of whom we received from Lesbos in the latter part of last year.

Deputy Martin Kenny spoke about the White Paper and our moves to discuss accommodation. As Deputy Connolly highlighted, the Catherine Day report is a fantastic document, but it recommended going down the HAP route. It indicated HAP should be the majority way in which provision for asylum seekers, while they await that determination, is met. We disagreed with that, which is why, in the White Paper, HAP is not the central focus. Rather, the central focus relates to build and purchase. That is what we are committed to doing and it is what we are working on, but we have to recognise we are creating a long-term system that will have ebbs and flows, and we have to build flexibility into it. At some point, some of that flexibility may involve HAP or other methods, but the central part of what we are doing relates to build and buy, in a way that does not conflict with the activities of local authorities. That is why we have worked closely with the Housing Agency and some of those larger bodies, particularly for single accommodation. We are not competing with families for the likes of a three-bed semi-detached house, given we are looking for something different, at least in some cases.

I welcome the support for the regularisation scheme, a very important scheme. I disagree with what was said about it being restrictive. It is a very broad approach. Other than a recognition that people have to have been living in the country for a period, namely, three years if they have children or four if they do not, it is a very broad approach for dealing with undocumented people and it is designed to bring people out of the shadows and into being registered and regularised in order that they can fully enjoy all the rights and protections everyone else does.

I welcome also the provision for people in international protection and direct provision at the moment. The Department of Justice will notify those who have been in the international protection application process for more than two years as to whether they are eligible for the scheme. A period of two years is the cut-off point of eligibility for the scheme. Obviously, it is then up to the individual. He or she can decide to apply for the regularisation scheme or, of course, continue on his or her existing international protection application. We are making that as flexible as possible, recognising that people have a right to apply for international protection. No one will be forced to apply under the regularisation scheme but it is an option for them. Particularly in the case of people who have been in the system for a long period, perhaps having gone through judicial reviews and the like or having lived in limbo for many years, this offers an opportunity to allow them to establish a status for themselves.

I welcome the House's support for the motion.

See this speech in context