Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I wish to put on the record of the House that we have just received a document from the Government regarding the 26 recommendations of the working group that have been included in the Bill. I am very disappointed that we only received this document this afternoon. It is quite clear that the Minister of State had this document last Thursday. The fact it has only been given to us now, once the debate has started, is appalling. It gives us no chance to study the 26 recommendations in full to determine what has been included or left out. It shows again the appalling tactics being used by the Government in the debate on this Bill. The Government was afraid to give us this document last week in case we came back today and argued against those elements of the Bill with which we are unhappy. It is deplorable that we are only seeing this document now.

I also wish to put on the record the fact that we received a statement over the weekend from four NGOs regarding this Bill. I hope we will not hear sweeping statements from those on the Government side to the effect this Bill has the full support of the NGO sector because the opposite is the case. The four NGOs which issued the statement are key in this area. They are fully supportive of a single protection process that will work effectively but they have outlined a number of serious concerns with the Bill which I will refer to as the debate progresses.

In the particular grouping of amendments under discussion, Sinn Féin proposed amendments Nos. 36 and 215. The former reads as follows:

In page 20, line 27, after “understand” to insert “, including, where appropriate, an information leaflet written in a child friendly manner”.

We believe it is important where the application for protection is for or by a child that information regarding law and procedures should be understandable to the child concerned.

Amendment No. 215 reads as follows:

In page 57, line 37, to delete “sections 52 to 56” and substitute “the International Protection Act 2015”.

The current provision, as has been outlined, is contrary to Ireland's obligations under the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child as it only extends to children once they have been granted protection status. There is also just limited reference to "the best interests of the child" in the context of the personal interview but it should be a primary principle throughout the process. Under Article 22 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Ireland is obliged to take appropriate measures to ensure that a child who is seeking refugee status or who is considered a refugee "shall, whether unaccompanied or accompanied by his or her parents or by any other person, receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the enjoyment of applicable rights set forth in the present Convention". Furthermore, the recast asylum procedures directive calls on states, in assessing the best interests of the child, to take due account of the minor's well-being and social development, including his or her background. The proposed amendment would ensure that the best interests of the child are paramount throughout the protection process.

I commend the various NGOs for assisting us in the formulation of amendments to the Bill. The Irish Refugee Council made numerous recommendations on the International Protection Bill 2015 and outlined a number of serious concerns with the legislation. The main concerns include the failure to embed the principle of "the best interests of the child" and the associated weaknesses which will potentially expose children to harm; the lack of protection in the single application procedure against error and omission and, therefore, the risk that wrong decisions will be made without adequate checks and balances and a right of redress; and the lack of respect for the rights of refugees to obtain family reunification. The council outlines a number of other concerns in its submission. It believes the best interests of the child, as declared in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, are a paramount consideration for both accompanied and separated children seeking international protection. Correspondingly, Ireland, as a state party to the aforementioned convention, must uphold its commitments to promote and respect children's rights in a non-discriminatory manner, including in the context of children seeking protection here, whether accompanied or separated. Currently, the Bill only refers in a limited way to "the best interests of the child" principle in the context of the content of international protection granted on recognition of a child's status in section 57(2). That is why the council has recommended that a new provision be included in the Bill reflecting this overarching obligation to respect the rights of the child.

Nasc Ireland, the Irish Immigration Support Centre, has also been in contact with us to highlight the fact that the general comment No. 6 of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child states that asylum seeking children, including those who are unaccompanied or separated, "shall enjoy access to asylum procedures and other complimentary mechanisms" providing international protection, irrespective of age.The Nasc recommendations continue as follows:

As it stands, under Section 15(3) of the Bill, a person who makes an application for protection under subsection (1)(a) 'shall be deemed to also have made an application for international protection on behalf of his or her dependent child where the child is not an Irish citizen', under certain criteria outlined in Section 15(3)(a-c). This is counter to the rights of the child to make a separate protection application on their own behalf. Amending Section 15(3) to clearly articulate that right, it will also remove any potential conflict with Head 7(2)f, which makes explicit reference to acts of persecution of a child-specific nature.

I have a serious problem with the failure of the Bill to address issues of child care and protection, particularly in respect of direct provision. The legislation offers an opportunity to provide some light and hope in respect of addressing issues relating to direct provision. I agreed with everything the Minister of State said during a Seanad debate on direct provision on 22 January 2015. For example, he stated, "Hand on heart, as an asylum seeker, I could see myself spending a period of weeks or months in some centres but there were some in which I would not like to spend a night." Later, speaking about a man he met in a direct provision centre in Limerick, he made the following comments:

As a society, system and country we have compounded his misery and broken him and I do not know if he will ever be repaired. I feel keenly that we have a responsibility to him, and also to children, who have been broken by the situation in which they find themselves. On my visits I noticed children playing a game called kitchen in the play spaces provided in direct provision centres. When they were playing they looked for an orange dispenser in the toy because that is the only way they know to get orange juice. It has never been given to them by their mother and they do not know about food preparation. Therefore, it is very disconcerting for me to see that this country still persists in prolonging its love affair with incarceration [that is the word the Minister of State used]. Apparently in the 1950s we had 250,000 people in mental institutions. Ireland also has a history of mother and baby homes, Magdalen laundries and an industrial schools system, yet again we revert to incarcerating and storing people while they wait for their asylum applications to be processed.

I fully agreed with the Minister of State when he spoke those words in the Chamber in January. I am disappointed, therefore, that none of these issues concerning the rights of children has been addressed in the Bill and I do not have any hope that they will be. I speak daily to people who work with those in direct provision. This is a missed opportunity.

I call on Senators to consider refusing to support the Bill because it is being used as a Trojan horse to introduce measures that will row back on the human rights provisions in existing legislation. Senators should not be swayed by an amendment here or there because, as four non-governmental organisations stated over the weekend, the Bill gives rise to serious issues. It should be withdrawn at this stage. While we accept certain provisions on the single procedure, a large amount of work remains to be done on the remainder of the Bill, which Sinn Féin is unable to support in its current form.