Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

-----on the Vehicle Clamping Bill 2014. Today at the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, reminded us that she had accepted an amendment proposed by Senator Katherine Zappone, Senator Jillian van Turnhout and others and I had supported them on extending the powers of the Human Rights and Equality Commission. It was a substantive amendment which I think will strengthen the work of that commission, of which we approved membership today after a good debate in the justice committee. We have had motions in the House on this issue also. As an Independent Member I had Private Members' Bills accepted. It is not just a matter for this Government. It requires a good deal of working with and collaboration with people on a cross-party basis, as we saw with Senator Averil Power in respect of the motion on the Palestinian State, which Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú mentioned, when many of us from across the floor all support a motion put forward. That is the strength of this House and we work well on this type of cross-party basis. I commend Senator David Norris and welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill.
While I agree with the Bill in principle I agree with moving to regularise the position of those who spent a long period in a legal limbo. That is what this Bill is about. However, we are at the commencement of a process of achieving real change in the direct provision and asylum application system in Ireland. That is hugely welcome. Senator Colm Burke and others have already spoken on this. I ask the Senator to give a little more time to the process which is ongoing. We have a working group established. I should start at the beginning. On 11 July 2014 the Government having reshuffled its Ministers issued a new statement of priorities which specifically addressed the direct provision system and agreed to reduce the length of time applicants spend in the system through the establishment of a single applications procedure and the establishment of an independent working group. In this House we had a motion on direct provision on 17 September which was taken by the Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, who promised reform. The following day he was meeting stakeholders with a view to establishing a working group. On 30 September he announced the establishment of that working group in the other House. In fairness, the explanatory memorandum to Senator David Norris's Bill acknowledges the appointment of respected independent experts to the working group on the protection system and direct provision, chaired by Judge Bryan McMahon which may also result in positive changes to the protection system overall. I think it will result in positive changes and I do not think there is any doubt about that. On 13 October he announced the membership of the group, having announced on 30 September that the chairperson would be Judge Bryan McMahon. Others have listed the membership, some from the Irish Refugee Council, the Jesuit Refugee Service, SPIRASI, the Children's Rights Alliance, UNHCR Ireland, independent academics and so on. This is a really good working group. The Minister of State, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin has been on the record many times giving a strong critique of the direct provision system, a critique we all share across the floor of the House. The system has been in place for 14 years. It is not the creation of this Government. Those of us who were in Opposition have acknowledged it was created as a stop-gap, as a measure to ensure that people would be housed and given shelter and provision. It was intended that it would be a short term measure, that people would be in direct provision no longer than six months. All the figures have been put on the record many times.

From the Reception and Integration Agency, RIA's own figures 68% of those who are in direct provision spend three or more years and the average stay is 48 months. I recently was in Hatch Hall, a direct provision centre a stone's throw from here and met individuals who had been in the system for ten years. Undoubtedly the system was not set up with that purpose. Undoubtedly, as I said on 17 Septembers, practical changes could be made to ensure greater respect for people in direct provision and greater dignity and better conditions for those in direct provision. A very simple thing, such as creating self-catering units which are in place in two of the direct provisions centres.

We can improve the conditions of the direct provision. Three issues have been identified as needing to be addressed. The Bill does not address all of these issues but the working group is addressing a much more comprehensive set of issues. It is addressing the conditions in direct provision as well as the length of time people spend in direct provision. That will be address not just by the working group but through the mechanism of the single protection procedure to be introduced through the legislation, to be fast tracked through the Houses. It is anticipated that the Bill will be passed by Easter 2015 and the Minister may comment on that.

I understood the working group will be reporting by Christmas. Senator Van Turnhout and I both did a double take when we saw it would be done by Easter. In fact we received a briefing from the Department of Justice and Equality does say Easter, but I would appreciate if the Minister of State could clarify it. I did check. the Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin in his speech to the Dail on 30 September refers to the working group which will be asked to submit a first report to Government by the end of the year. At that point, there was a December deadline. Easter was spoken of as the deadline for implementing reforms, which will be fair, but we need more clarity on that.

The Bill seeks to regularise people's position and to ensure a right to work is built in at a certain point. I am not clear on when that should be or on the categories to whom it should apply. I am not sure that I could say for certain that this Bill takes the correct approach. It applies, as I read it, to a large category of persons, not just those who have had applications for asylum refused and who have been in the system for more than four year, but a broader category under section 4 (2)(c). I would need more clarity on the categories to whom it is intended to apply.

We need to see overall reform of the immigration system. That is acknowledged and that is beyond the scope of this Bill or that of the working group, but I anticipate the work of the working group in its report.