Paul Bradford (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I second the motion. I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I saw the Minister on television last Sunday night playing soccer on a pitch in Dublin but I hope his amendment is something more than political football. I have heard the Minister, and many others, describe himself as a believer in progressive politics. The word "progressive" is often abused but I ask the Minister to reflect on the fact that this amendment was put down by the Government. Perhaps it is a weakness of our political system that the Government seems to be unable to accept any idea, suggestion or proposal it does not make but has the Minister any objection to any word or sentence in Senator Mullen's motion? I am sure he does not. Is there anything in the amendment which adds to the motion? I do not believe that is the case. That the Minister of State and the line Minister are in agreement is not exactly news. Telling us what is contained in the revised programme for Government is not news. I do not blame the Minister for the amendment.

Sadly, this is how politics works in this country, the Government must proclaim it is always right and the Opposition is always wrong. We all are demeaned by this sort of amendment. I still look forward to the Minister of State's comments because he has expressed strong - I hope genuine - views on this issue of direct provision.
Senator Mullen outlined clearly the case for the motion and it is impossible to disagree with anything he said. In particular, I support his latter comments about the possibility of allowing the asylum seekers to work. We all recognise that the question of work is central to the economy. It is central to politics. Tragically, there are too many unemployed in this country, but it is immoral beyond words that asylum seekers are in reception centres for three, four or five years, or as in the case illustrated earlier, nine years, without an entitlement to at least seek a job. What sort of message does that send? How will it be reflected on, reviewed and written about in ten, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years' time? It will be yet another stain on the soul of society. Unlike the Ireland of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s in The Valley of the Squinting Windows, there is no hidden valley here. We all know what is and what is not going on, and it is simply not good enough.
Those in the reception centres across the country have come from tragic places; I am sure they are not here by choice. They never expected to end up as asylum seekers. Their stories are horrific. We have a moral responsibility to improve the conditions in which they live. The staff providing the services are doing the best they can. Their hands are equally tied; the budgets are extremely limited. How can we support a concept of a person living on an income of €19 per week, with no prospects, no future, no certainties, no idea as to when or what his or her future will be? It certainly is not good enough in a so-called modern republic.
I appreciate that the Minister of State's hands are perhaps politically tied and that he must propose and advocate his amendment. I hope he can suggest a timeframe for action. I want to put on record, obviously, my full support for the motion, but also my disappointment that there was even contemplation by Government of amending this motion because no Member of this House could disagree with any of the words of the motion or any of the sentiments of Senator Mullen in proposing it. Senator Mullen's motion must cause all of us to ask what type of society we want to create, what sort of message we want to send out and what sort of Ireland we want to inhabit. I ask the Minister of State, even at this stage, to consider withdrawing the amendment and accepting, in the spirit of humanity, the motion as presented. It would be a positive step forward and it would show the seriousness with which the Minister of State, his senior colleague and the Government are taking this issue.