Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I had the opportunity to read the reply and I have to say I am really disappointed with it. Half the reply is telling me that people have to be habitual residents. I know this. The purpose of the question was to ask about those seeking international protection. Clearly they do not have residency. This is the result of an unjust system set up more than 21 years ago. It was supposed to be temporary. It has been the subject of numerous reports going back to the McMahon report. The most recent report is from the Ombudsman. It is the first time the Ombudsman has done a special report on serious concerns for the welfare of children. In my next supplementary question I will speak more about this.

My question is in the context of this and the White Paper which promised to abolish direct provision. The Ombudsman acknowledges the terrible pressure on the Government given the number of refugees who have come to our country in the past year. I also acknowledge this. However, direct provision was supposed to be abolished and the White Paper specifically recommended a payment equivalent to child benefit. The Minister of State might direct his second reply on this.

See this speech in context