Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 31:

In page 19, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:

"(iii) reporting requirements shall be subject to review taking into account the personal circumstances of an applicant seeking international protection and maintaining flexibility in relation to those personal circumstances".

I am not trying to be vexatious but I do not see any logical reason for grouping those two amendments. Amendment No. 31 proposes to insert the following lines on page 19, between lines 29 and 30, "reporting requirements shall be subject to review taking into account the personal circumstances of an applicant seeking international protection and maintaining flexibility in relation to those personal circumstances". This, again, is a practical amendment. It has been recommended that some flexibility be maintained in reporting requirements and the possibility to periodically review the reporting requirements depending on the personal circumstances of a protection applicant. For example, if an applicant for international protection is heavily pregnant, the reporting requirements to present at a specified Garda Síochána station should be lifted. I am aware of an example in this regard. I do not want to indicate the area where it took place because I do not want to reveal who are the people involved. I refer to the case of a number of school-going children who are involved in a sports club locally as part of an effort to integrate with the local community. They are particularly good and it is a high-performance club. As part of their activities, children from the club will travel to another European country to take part in an international sports competition. However, the two young people to whom I refer are precluded from travelling as a result of the issue to which amendment No. 31 relates. This is something that can frustrate those seeking asylum, particularly younger people. There is a great deal of talk about treating all of the children equally but we do not see this happening in practice. There are situations where people find it very difficult to travel and can only do so at the behest of the Minister. This is a small but important amendment. I cannot see what issue the Minister of State would have with this. I am sure he will take it on board and possibly accept it in the good faith in which it is being put forward.