Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. Tá go leor fadhbanna agam leis an mBille atá os ár gcomhair inniu.

To put it bluntly, Sinn Féin cannot support this Bill as it stands. We welcome a single application procedure but not an application procedure that ignores basic safeguards and ignores the rights of children. It is claimed that this legislation will create an efficient procedure for the processing of applicants for international protection. However, efficient procedures require a depth of thought and consideration that are completely absent from this Bill. Further, the democratic procedures required for effective scrutiny are being ignored in terms of the speed with which this Bill is being presented to the House and the disregard that has been shown to the organisations that submitted their considered opinions to the joint committee, and to the recommendations of the Government's own working group on the protection process, the report of which was published on 30 June 2015.

At best, this Bill is a work of incompetence. A cynic might say that it is not a matter of incompetence but, rather, a complete disregard for those who are weakest in Irish society since there are no votes affected in the Fine Gael constituency in respect of these matters. Where, then, is the influence of the Labour Party on the Bill? By agreeing to this legislation, Labour has done a complete disservice to the weakest members of this society. It is astounding that the Minister of State, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, is lending his legitimacy to it. Let us examine the Labour Party's claims. On the party's website it states, "Labour is the only party of social change." Despite the absolute vacuity of that statement, with this Bill Labour can say it is indeed a party of social change, a change in this Bill which represents a rolling back of previous protections provided in the Asylum Act of 1996 and a rolling back of ensuring those weakest in society are afforded basic and humane protections. It is certainly social change to render the inviolability of the home null and void.

The Labour Party also claims that "Labour has changed Ireland for the better, and has made our country a more modern, equal, and progressive place for everybody." This is hypocrisy. Is modernity reflected in the intrusive medical examinations on children, absent their consent, that are facilitated in this Bill? Is equality reflected in the fact that victims of domestic violence are equally fearful of reporting violence inflicted by their partners in case it removes them from basic legal protections and opens up the appalling possibility of deportation? With regard to progressivity, in this Bill persons seeking protection are seeing a progressive removal of minimum humane standards of international law.

In the statement of Government priorities for the period 2014 to 2016, the Government committed to treating asylum seekers with the humanity and respect they deserve. In this Bill, we now indeed see what this Government thinks asylum seekers deserve. They deserve to be treated arbitrarily by the Minister for Justice and Equality. They deserve to be removed from their homes in the middle of the night. They deserve to have their consent ignored and undergo an invasive medical examination. They deserve to have the unity of their family life destroyed and negated. These houses must be afforded the time needed to rectify these oversights and incorporate the expert opinions available to really make a difference to individual asylum seekers.

Sinn Féin stands in solidarity with the weakest in our society. Sinn Féin concurs with the opinions expressed by the experts and the Irish Refugee Council, Nasc, Doras Luimní, the Children's Rights Alliance, the Immigrant Council of Ireland, SPIRASI and Women's Aid, who have all conveyed their concerns to us. I commend them on their work and recognise their input into this debate. They are part of the wider democratic process and it is a pity the submissions they made on this Bill were not used to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of our legislative process. Sinn Féin will be bringing forward a large number of amendments on Committee Stage in the hope that the Minister does the right thing. I hope that the Minister of State, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, will use whatever influence he has to assist in the latter being achieved.

There has been much talk about the recommendations of the working group and there has been approval for the fact that 26 of them have been taken on board but there were 170 recommendations. Where are the rest of them and where are the key recommendations? All Senators across the House need to reflect on how and how many times direct provision was referenced in the Minister's speech. It is only referenced as a title of a report or in connection with the length of time people spend in direct provision. I have asked the Minister on a number of occasions where she stands on direct provision. Senators across this House have called for direct provision, as an institution, to be scrapped. We have said that this institutionalised abuse needs to be ended forever as it is not tolerable but I do not see anything in this legislation that will get rid of direct provision or change it significantly. All the Minister intends to do is reduce the amount of time people spend in direct provision. That is totally unacceptable to me and it should be totally unacceptable to the other Senators across this House.

Why have the opinions of the Ombudsman for Children and the Ombudsman, who has responsibility for oversight, not been taken on board? Why have the opinions put forward by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions not been taken on board in this legislation? People took part in the working group in good faith and the Minister of State, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, made laudable statements regarding his opinions on direct provision and the asylum process through the working group. My experience of working with people in direct provision is that they feel they have been conned, particularly those in the institution of direct provision who feel the system failed them and the process was merely a charade to kick things down the road. They have no faith whatsoever in the Department of Justice, Equality and Defence in this regard. What about the opinions on direct provision that were aired in these Houses? The Minister should go back and read the debates we held on direct provision and look at what she said about it. She said it should be scrapped so how come all those opinions have not been taken on board in this legislation?

We have had an absolute farce in the past couple of days as regards another item of legislation from the Minister's Department and we see, again, that there are over 150 amendments from the Department on a Bill it has just presented. That is totally unacceptable and this is obviously a ham-fisted piece of legislation. It is not ready, it is half-baked and should be taken back. I will oppose taking Committee Stage tomorrow morning because we need a proper debate on the amendments the Minister is putting forward.

Other issues have been raised with us which need to be considered before the Bill is finalised and enacted, such as the absence of any reference to the reception of people seeking international protection, the lack of clarity around the training or powers of an immigration officer at the frontiers where interviews will be conducted and a lack of independent oversight. Other issues are: the lack of any reference to the identification of vulnerable persons who may need greater assistance and care throughout the application process and the reception system; the lack of any gender-sensitive procedures and the absence of a particular reference to domestic violence as an act of persecution; the absence of any independent oversight of the Department of Justice, Equality and Defence in the carrying out of its obligations and duties; the very limited reference to the best interests of the child; the lack of a definition of an unaccompanied minor or a separated child; the inability of a child or young person to apply for international protection other than through an adult; the lack of independent legal advice for an unaccompanied child; and the inclusion of unaccompanied children in procedures which can lead to their application being deemed inadmissible, etc.

There are massive issues with this Bill and we will raise those issues on Committee Stage. We want to see the single procedure coming forward but we cannot allow this Bill to be a Trojan horse that will leave those very vulnerable people who are seeking our aid and looking for our support at a time of huge strife in their lives in a worse position than that which they are in at present. I fear that this is what the Bill will do and I say that in good faith. We want to work with the Minister to make it a better Bill and to bring forward the single procedure. However, we have massive concerns around the remainder of the legislation.