Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. I also welcome this opportunity to resume our debate on the Bill and to discuss Committee Stage amendments. I hope it will be possible to consider including more references in the text to the best interests of the child as a primary consideration. I am conscious that this is provided for in a number of sections. It is clearly set out in section 24 dealing with the examination to determine the age of unaccompanied minors, section 35 dealing with applicants who are unaccompanied minors, and section 57 dealing with the vulnerable persons. I am conscious that this important phrase is already specifically spelled out in some provisions of the Bill. All Senators will also be aware of the constitutional provision on the rights of the child to which all legislation is subject. That must be said.

Notwithstanding this, I support, in principle, Senator van Turnhout's attempt to ensure that this consideration is adhered to or emphasised throughout the Bill. We should try to find some way to achieve this objective. I am conscious that the Bill must go through all Stages in the Dáil, which means there may be time to consider whether it would be useful or effective to place further specific reference to that consideration in other provisions of the Bill. As I stated, it is specifically outlined in the three sections that make what may be the three most relevant provisions.

Senator van Turnhout and the other Senators who tabled amendments are engaging constructively to ensure the Bill is improved upon, which is welcome. Last week, I was one of the Senators who stated the Bill had been broadly welcomed in principle by non-government organisations. I stand over that statement.I am looking at the comment made by the Irish Immigrant Support Centre, Nasc, last week: "Nasc welcomes the introduction of the International Protection Bill 2015, and we welcome the fact that the Bill relates solely to protection". In its note on the Bill, dated 30 November, the Irish Refugee Council states: "The Irish Refugee Council supports the introduction of new legislation in this field given previous attempts to legislate dating back almost ten years and agrees that a new application procedure is needed as soon as possible".

Let us not have posturing on this issue. This is the first attempt in ten years to raise the baseline in a flawed and problematic process. Clearly, there is a great deal more to be done, even just in terms of the working group's recommendations on direct provision. However, direct provision is only one part of our immigration and legal framework which, as I said, needs a great deal more reform. Let us recall that in the four or five years of the previous Government it made tortuous attempts to bring forward an overarching immigration, residence and protection Bill but failed to do so. This Bill only deals with a small part of the issue - international protection. It will greatly improve matters for those who will seek asylum in the future by providing for a single unified procedure and for those in the direct provision system by ensuring people will not be left languishing for long periods of time.

All of us, across parties, have spoken about the need to reform the direct provision system and to end it in its current form, in which delay is the biggest problem. The recommendation of the working group was early enactment and implementation of a single procedure, by way of the International Protection Bill. That deals with one of the biggest issues in the direct provision system - the long period of time spent in it, with children growing up knowing of no other life but living in direct provision accommodation. Let us agree on that much. I cannot understand how any NGO can suggest the Bill does not represent an improvement on the current procedure. There is a lot more to be done, but let us engage constructively to improve the provisions of the Bill.

I have spoken openly about the speed with which we are getting through the Bill and the fact that there are so many Government amendments so soon after publication, albeit most of them are not substantive and are relatively technical, relating to a change of name. Clearly, the Bill is not ideal, yet it represents a significant improvement and is long overdue. It is most unfortunate, therefore, that we are now hearing people calling for it to be withdrawn or seeing them protest outside Leinster House, saying "Kill the Bill." If that happens, when will we see it back in the House? Let us be honest about it. We know that we have limited time left in the lifetime of the Government. Let us try to get the Bill through, improve it as it goes through, engage constructively on it with the Government to seek to bring about the other recommendations of the working group as they relate to direct provision and work towards the future overarching immigration law reform we so badly need. This is the first step which is welcome and long overdue.