Jim Daly (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The first Topical Issue, in the name of Deputies Fiona O'Loughlin, Bríd Smith and Mick Barry to the Minister for Justice and Equality, is the Supreme Court ruling on the right of asylum seekers to work. The Deputies have one minute each to make an initial statement. I ask them to stick to the time limits - I did not set them but I am here so they are adhered to - in the interest of fairness to everybody. The Minister has four minutes to reply. The Deputies then have one minute each for a supplementary statement and the Minister has two minutes for a concluding statement. Deputy O'Loughlin is first.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yesterday, a seven-judge verdict from the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favour of an asylum seeker challenging the State's ban on him seeking employment. Clearly, this is a significant and, in my view, welcome judgment with many ramifications. The Supreme Court found, in principle, the ban in the Refugee Act on asylum seekers seeking employment ran contrary to the right to seek employment as set out in the Constitution. I am thinking of Zac, Yalda and many others who I met in the Eyre Powell Hotel in Newbridge to whom this would be welcome information. Will the Department act swiftly to rectify this situation and when can we expect legislation from the Minister to do this?

Jim Daly (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for adhering to the time.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In his report, the retired judge, Mr. Justice McMahon, described those living in direct provision as dehumanised and depressed. He said these people were like ghosts. I am sure these people who are like ghosts celebrated when they heard the outcome of the Supreme Court. Can the Minister imagine sitting around, in many cases for five or six years but in some cases for ten, 11 or 12 years, and doing absolutely nothing? I read back over the Minister of State, Deputy Stanton's report when we discussed this on 30 March. The Minister of State went into the detail of all the problems with the direct provision system and how it needs to be address. Not once in that report did the Minister of State mention the right to work and yet we read in The Irish Timesthis morning that a spokesman for the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald, stated that independently of the judgment, she had started to examine options that would allow asylum seekers to access the labour market in certain circumstances. I do not believe it for one minute. I do not believe that the Department will sincerely address the question of the right to work.

Jim Daly (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have given the Deputy enough latitude.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe, rather, that the Department will try to fast-track asylum seekers out of the system in order to get over the constitutional issue.

Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe the case was taken by a Burmese man who had been in the system for eight years. He spoke about an almost complete loss of autonomy. He spoke about depression. He spoke about the effects that being forced not to work for that period of time had on his sense of self-worth. Approximately 5,000 people are trapped in this system, and more than one third of them are children.

It is a shame that successive Governments in the past 17 years have kept this system in place. I hope this is an opportunity to end the direct provision system, as well as ending the ban on the right to work for asylum seekers. I look forward to the Minister of State's comments.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for tabling this Topical Issue which provides a useful opportunity for me to outline some initial views to the House. Clearly, this is a very important judgment and its full implications are being examined carefully. The court recognises the complexities of this issue in that it acknowledges the Executive function in not only controlling who should enter the State but also in regulating the activities of non-citizens while in the State. It has also had to consider the distinctions in rights between citizens and non-citizens in the context of Article 40.1 of the Constitution.

The right of asylum seekers to work is an issue I have raised previously and in recent weeks both the Tánaiste and I asked our officials to begin work to identify the options for and barriers to asylum seekers in accessing the labour market in particular defined circumstances. Yesterday’s judgment gives this work increased emphasis and priority. The judgment has concluded that an absolute ban on the right to work, as distinct from a time limit being set in legislation or by some other means, is contrary to rights under Article 40.1 of the Constitution. The court recognises that this is a matter for the Executive and the Legislature to consider and, accordingly, has adjourned consideration of what order it should make for a period of six months. Full consideration will be given to the judgment in the coming period and it is expected that the State will make submissions to the court on the format of the order it is to make at the appropriate time.

The judgment raises obvious policy, legal and operational issues and my Department, working with the Office of the Attorney General and in consultation with other Departments, will be examining its impacts in the coming period. Proposals will be brought to the Government as soon as that process concludes. Contributions from Members of this House to this process will also be carefully considered.

The judgment should not be looked at in isolation without recognising the considerable changes that have already been made to the system of international protection and the improvements that have been made and are continuing to be made to the direct provision system. The new asylum legislation which commenced on 31 December last has been specifically designed to address the delays in decision making which resulted in increased time spent in direct provision accommodation. Positive determinations have been made in 115 cases in the first three months of this year, the result of which is that the individuals in question are fully entitled to access the labour market.

Regarding the overall length of stay in direct provision accommodation, since the working group led by Mr. Justice McMahon examined the issue, there has been a radical improvement in the length of time persons spend in the direct provision system. Figures show that 72% have been in direct provision accommodation for three years or less since the date of their application. This compares to a figure of 36% for persons who had been there for three years or less when the data were compiled for the working group in 2015. In other words, there has been a complete reversal in the profile of the length of stay since the working group examined the matter. These improvements are as a result of concerted efforts to deal with the cases of applicants five or more years in the system.

Overall, 92% of the McMahon report’s 173 recommendations have been implemented, partially implemented or are in progress. This is a significant increase on the figure of 80% reported in the first audit of progress published last June. That means 121 of the recommendations made have been implemented, with a further 38 either partially implemented or in progress. Two of the most recent recommendations to be implemented involve bringing the offices of the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman for Children into the system whereby they can now hear complaints from residents of direct provision centres.

The McMahon report also focused on improvements in living conditions in direct provision centres. A programme of independent living is being rolled out across the centres to enable residents to have access to self-catering options. A self-catering system is in operation in Mosney, with further kitchens installed and becoming available for use by residents in centres in Clonakilty, on the Kinsale Road, in Knocklisheen and St Patrick’s in Monaghan. In addition, a food hall was opened at Mosney in January this year which allows residents to acquire their own food through a points system.

The question of the right to work is closely intertwined with the processing times for first instance decisions. In many EU member states the right to work is not unfettered. It often arises after a particular period of time, usually nine months to one year, and in many instances is limited to particular job categories. In Sweden and Portugal, for example, the granting of a right to work coincides with the withdrawal of financial supports. One of the principal aims of the International Protection Act is to process cases as quickly as possible in orrder that persons granted permission to stay will have an automatic right to work. Providing for a legal or practical limitation on the time taken to process an application for asylum is one option mentioned in the judgment that may be permissible. This will be a matter for further consideration.

The full implications of the judgment are being examined, including the wider implications for the operation of the common travel area and the upcoming Brexit negotiations. However, what can be said at this point is that the Government, through its various measures to improve processing rates, is moving to the stage where first instance decisions on status will be made as quickly as possible, with persons granted status having an automatic right to work. Clearly, the alignment of these important developments will form part of the detailed consideration and response to yesterday’s Supreme Court judgment.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State for his response. It is good to know that he, the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality and officials in the Department have started examining and working on the judgment. It is also welcome that 92% of the 173 of the recommendations made the McMahon report have been implemented. Will the Minister of State clarify when we can expect to see legislation to implement the Supreme Court's judgment? Does the Department intend to legislate as per the recommendation made in the McMahon report which makes specific reference to providing access to the labour market for applicants who are awaiting a first instance decision for nine months or more and who have co-operated with the protection process? The recommendation reflects the minimum standard across several EU member states. I appeal to the Minister of State's compassion and ask him to ensure legislation will be brought forward as quickly as possible to deal with this issue.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State's reply confirms my suspicions. What he has said is that those who are granted permission to stay have an automatic right to work. What about those who are waiting for permission to stay? Even if they have been here for only nine months, with every hungry belly there is a pair of hands and often a very good brain. Many of the people concerned are highly educated and well trained and have a lot to contribute to society. It appears that the Government is worried that an unfettered right to work for asylum seekers would have a huge impact on the Brexit negotiations, but I do not understand that argument. Just because a person has the right to work does not mean that he or she has the right to leave the country when he or she is seeking asylum here. All it says to me is that the Irish Government and the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, are scared stiff of asylum seekers and immigrants who are fleeing war, famine, persecution and dictatorships. It tallies very nicely with Theresa May's policies and the fortress Europe policy. That is what the Government is worried about. It is concerned about the impact on Brexit if it allows asylum seekers to use their labour and brains to make a difference and seek a better life in this country. That is both racist and wrong.

Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The provision of direct provision centres has been a shameful episode in the history of the nation. A comparison has been made with the Magdalen laundries of former days and it is fair to say the centres are the Magdalen laundries of our time. I do not buy the Minister of State's argument that the fact that people are spending less time in direct provision accommodation is entirely down to the Government's humanitarian policies and progress thereon. It also reflects the fact that there has been a speeding up of deportations, with many people being forcibly evicted from the country.

I await the Government's proposals with interest and will study them very carefully. However, I urge campaigners on this issue not to sit back and wait for the Government's proposals. Now is the time for asylum seekers and anti-racism campaigners to organise to make sure that whatever change does happen is the best possible change for asylum seekers. The pressure will come from below.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Mick Barry is very articulate in condemning the direct provision centres, but he does not say what he would put in their place. I invite him to let me know what he would do if he was Minister for Justice and Equality. What would he like to see instead of direct provision centres?

Mick Barry (Cork North Central, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will let the Minister of State know.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have visited most of the direct provision centres in the country and seen that massive improvements have been made. I have spoken to many residents and the vast majority are quite happy with what is happening. That said, we have more to do and will continue to do more. The judgment was only published yesterday. It will be considered very carefully because it has wide-ranging implications. Maintaining the common travel area is a very serious matter and anything that might have an impact on it must be considered carefully. It has to be considered-----

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How will it have an impact?

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The judgment was only published yesterday. We will take time to examine it carefully and will move as quickly as possible, as Deputy Fiona O'Loughlin urged, to bring forward legislation. We welcome the judgment. I point out that the lower courts went the other way in this case, but the Supreme Court has now clarified the matter. However, there are other implications which must be considered and that will be done at the earliest possible opportunity.