David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

This Bill was not drafted in the belief that it would be a panacea for all the shortcomings and complexities of the current situation. That said, where is the hope here? What we are being presented with is a kind of endless long-fingering which is a great mistake. I have already corrected Sinn Féin representatives who said there were no provisions for travel in the Bill, which there clearly are. It seems to be there is a kind of puffed up vanity thing going on for Sinn Féin and I deplore that.
The Minister of State spoke about the right of the Minister to deport individuals and so on. That right is plainly provided for here in section 8 (1) (iii), which states that a residence permit can be revoked and a deportation order issued if "the deportation of the person would, in the opinion of the Minister, be conducive to the common good". The Minister of State also argued that this Bill is a potential magnet for false protection claims but that is very easily rectified.
The chief executive of Nasc, Ms Fiona Finn, who is a member of the working group, has fully supported this Bill. Where does the Government stand now, when a member of its own working group is supporting this Bill? The Minister of State also made reference to vexatious appeals to string things out but the Government has already indicated that it will take a fast track approach to this. The most telling phrase in the Minister of State's response was that the Bill is "unpredictable and potentially very costly in its impact". That is where the real nub is. The Government is afraid it will cost a few bob, rather than handing out €19.20 to asylum seekers.
Reference was made to a lack of clarity with regard to what happens to extant protection applications in circumstances where the applicant stands to gain the automatic residency provided for in section 6 of the Bill but this could all be amended and looked at again. There is nothing to stop a protection application at all in the legislation. The Minister of State also spoke about the automaticity with which residence must be granted without any prior consideration of exclusion grounds of the type set out in section 8 of the Bill. He also referred to the potential legal difficulties arising from section 5 which would require the revocation of deportation orders lawfully granted. The State has a right to decide who enters and who stays and no court in this country would challenge the right of the Government to make such decisions so that is a lot of utter and total hot air on the part of the Department.
I would like to thank all of those who took part in the debate which was very informative and useful. However, things are being left to linger, like the case of a woman in a wheelchair in a second floor apartment who is concerned about what will happen if there is a fire. A fire could happen any time in the next six months. We are told "wait six months and something might happen" and maybe it will, but what about that woman in her apartment?
I wish to deal with the situation of children. It is appalling to think that children do not have proper provision for play. Some of these children have been through school and are waiting to go to university but they are treated as aliens. They get €19.20 per week but are expected to fork out €10,000 for fees. How about that? That is a plain injustice. The fifth report of the special rapporteur on child protection highlights the need for research on "the potential or actual harm which is being created by the particular circumstances of their residence including the inability of parents to properly care for and protect their children and the damage that may be done by living for a lengthy period of time in an institutionalised setting which was not designed for long term residence".
On the issue of overcrowding, the Housing Act 1966, section 63 (b) states that a house shall be deemed to be overcrowded where "the free air space in any room used as a sleeping apartment, for any person is less than four hundred cubic feet (the height of the room, if it exceeds eight feet, being taken to be eight feet, for the purpose of calculating free air space)". Direct provision centres are overcrowded according to the Housing Act of 1966. Section 63 (a) of the same Act states that a house shall be deemed to be overcrowded when the number of persons ordinarily sleeping in the house and the number of rooms therein are such that "any two of those persons, being persons of ten years of age or more of opposite sexes and not being persons living together as husband and wife , must sleep in the same room". That is happening all over the place. It is an absolute outrage and a scandal. The slow motion approach is a reproach to all of us.
I had intended to speak about comparisons with other countries but we are about the worst in Europe. I completely reject what the Sinn Féin representatives said about people in America. The situation is actually worse because they are not fleeing torture or war but are economic migrants, which we, in this country, simply reject out of hand. I thank Senator Fergal Quinn for putting the comparative situation in Europe into perspective. We should really be ashamed of what we are proposing to do here this evening.