Mary Moran (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I cannot answer that. I ask for Senator Darragh O'Brien's co-operation in this matter. We should consider the recommendations made by the working group when it reports back to the Government.
Senator Norris referred to the payment of €19 and €6 per week made to adults and children, respectively. No one could live on that amount. I read recently that toilet paper has been limited, with people being allocated a certain amount. This is an inhumane practice. Progress must be made on direct provision. I thank Senator Norris for tabling the legislation and allowing Senators to have a conversation on the issue. Unfortunately, the technical issues with the Bill mean it will be necessary to await the report of the working group before progressing the issue.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. Tá áthas orm deis a bheith agam labhairt ar an díospóireacht seo.

The irony of this debate is that it is happening at the same time as the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions is having hearings on direct provision. I apologise because I will have to leave after delivering my speech, and that is no disrespect to anybody in the House, but we have been calling for those hearings for the last year.

I do not disagree with any of the sentiments that have been raised about direct provision and, in fact, I agree with them wholeheartedly. However, I do not believe the Bill before us is about direct provision but rather about the legal status of people seeking asylum. Sinn Féin welcomes any efforts that aim to remedy the issues around direct provision and we have worked tirelessly on this issue in the all-party group on direct provision. We have repeatedly raised the issue with various Ministers, both in this and the other House, and with the Ombudsman, and we have worked closely with NGOs and asylum seekers themselves. Even as we speak, as I said, this issue is being debated in the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions on foot of our call to extend the powers of the Ombudsman on oversight of direct provision, which is very badly needed.

Nonetheless, we have very serious concerns about this Bill. Simply put, we do not feel this is good legislation and it could possibly be a retrograde step. For example, I have heard the comparison made between Irish immigrants in the United States and direct provision. The opening sentence of the explanatory memorandum of this Bill states: “with an estimated 50,000 Irish immigrants in the United States with an irregular migration status, it is important that Irish law deals compassionately with issues relating to migration status”. I agree that Ireland should deal compassionately with issues relating to migration. However, it is inaccurate to conflate or compare undocumented Irish people in the US with people in direct provision in Ireland. Direct provision is a fully-fledged State-run system where, even down to the minutiae of food, people lack autonomy, individual choice and the most basic human rights.

This Bill aims to deal specifically with applications for refugee status, subsidiary protection or leave to remain that are outstanding for a period of four years, its intention being to clear some of the backlog of applications before a proposed new single protection procedure comes into force. The Bill also seeks to regularise the status of people who have been issued with deportation orders but are still resident in the State after a period of 12 months. However, for regularisation to take place, there needs to be irregularity. People who have outstanding applications for either refugee status or subsidiary protection cannot be said to have an irregular status. Instead, they are awaiting a decision on applications made under Irish law, which is itself in compliance with either international or EU obligations.