Martin Conway (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “That” and substitute “the Bill be read a second time this day 18 months to take account of the changed circumstances since the Bill was first introduced in 2014 and to ensure that there are no serious unintended consequences arising and to allow time:(i) to ensure that, in accordance with national public policy, changes are not implemented that would impact the continuation of the Common Travel Area thus ensuring that Ireland’s negotiation position with the United Kingdom (U.K.) on the Common Travel Area is not compromised in upcoming negotiations following the outcome of their referendum to leave the European Union (E.U.);

(ii) in the light of Ireland’s commitments in the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum at the European Council where there is a specific commitment ‘to use only case by case regularisation, rather than generalised regularisation under national law, for humanitarian or economic reasons’, to ensure that our negotiation position with the E.U. on retaining the Common Travel Area is not weakened in the context of the U.K.’s decision to leave the E.U.;

(iii) to allow for the commencement of the International Protection Act 2015 which replaces the time consuming, multi-layered sequential applications system with a new single applications procedure in compliance with international standards, designed to address the issue of the length of time people spend in the protection system and to deliver determinations of applications within a shorter timeframe;

(iv) to provide for the completion of the implementation of the recommendations of the Working Group Report to the Government on Improvements to the Protection Process, including Direct Provision and other Supports which already addresses the position of international protection applicants who are the subject of this Bill; and

(v) in order to consider in detail any discrimination resulting from the different treatment of categories of applicants prescribed by the Bill which would have to be justified by objectively sustainable, and not arbitrary, reasons in order to be constitutionally compliant.”.

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality, Deputy Stanton, to the House and congratulate him on his elevation to ministerial office. He is in a very appropriate Department given his phenomenal apprenticeship because he had the premiership of briefings chairing the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence where he did a remarkable job. Senator Norris acknowledged that. I also congratulate Senator Clifford-Lee on her appointment as Fianna Fáil spokesperson on justice. It is a very important role and I have no doubt she will do a very good job.

Nobody can defend the direct provision structure and system as it is. In the last Seanad I called for a phased abolition of direct provision. It does not do this country justice. Tens of millions of our forefathers emigrated and received wonderful hospitality and an opportunity to flourish and blossom and to use their many skillsets to contribute meaningfully and productively to the creation and development of many cities and countries around the world. It is also true that many millions of our forefathers were blaggarded and not treated very well when they went abroad. We often hear stories of signs saying “no dogs, no Irish” in windows in different parts of the world. We have experienced both sides of this situation. Therefore we have a duty to be fair and humanitarian, and to treat people with respect, dignity and as equals. Direct provision certainly does not do that.

Senator Norris brought this Bill before the Seanad in 2014. Prior to that along with Senator Ó Clochartaigh and others, I formed an ad hocall-party Seanad committee which was very effective, to address the issues of direct provision. We brought people living in direct provision into Leinster House where they briefed us. We took the initiative to travel to several centres, including Galway, where it was made abundantly clear to us how difficult, challenging and degrading it is and certainly not what our society wants. I agree with Senator Boyhan and with the eminent retired judge, Catherine McGuinness, who said we will be apologising for it as a nation in 20, 30 or 50 years’ time or perhaps even sooner when a Taoiseach will stand in Dáil Éireann delivering an apology similar to the apologies that have been made to people who suffered institutional abuse over the years. That will be the right thing to do. It is a shame and shocking that we will have to do that because of the behaviour and the lack of action of Governments since 2000.

In the renegotiated programme for Government in 2014 there was a commitment to tackle this issue. Mr. Justice Bryan MacMahon was appointed to chair a working group which reported and many of its recommendations have been implemented. Not all the recommendations have been implemented and certainly not quickly enough but at least there has been action and movement. At the same time, Senator Ó Ríordáin was appointment Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality to take responsibility for this area. He made it a personal commitment and priority to drive this issue and try to find solutions. Coupled with those developments is the International Protection Act 2015, which was necessary and needs to be implemented. Its provisions need to be put into action.

The kernel of the problem is the delay in processing people’s applications. If people are denied the right to stay they properly have a right to appeal that decision but these appeals can take a considerable time to go through the courts. I am glad that the International Protection Act will streamline that process. There has been a significant increase in the number of people who have been given leave to remain. The process is moving much faster than heretofore and more people are moving into our communities. The system was set up in 2000. The Government of the day was caught in a situation it did not expect. Thousands of people were seeking refuge in this country. Direct provision was seen as a temporary little arrangement but unfortunately it has become too permanent for too many people.

I had the privilege as a guest of the Irish Refugee Council of visiting the direct provision system in Portugal which was most impressive. Nobody was left in direct provision or had an application delayed longer than six months. In Portugal six months was seen as the upper limit. The applications were dealt with in weeks in many cases but certainly within two to three months. If the process went on for six months it was seen as a failure. The direct provision centres provided education, access to employment and sporting activities. It was the premiership of direct provision centres. We need as a nation to have a conversation with ourselves and to ask if we need a direct provision system. My contention is that we do not.

The amendment proposes that we put Senator Norris’s excellent Bill on hold for 18 months. I know the Minister of State having worked with him for five years, and he is very committed to equality and to ensuring that everybody has equal opportunity. He is uncomfortable with the direct provision system. Eighteen months is a reasonable period to allow the Minister of State and his officials build on the progress made as a result of the MacMahon recommendations, to give him the opportunity to implement more of them, allow him to commence the International Protection Act 2015 and have the breathing space that he and the Government need to move this issue on significantly.It is only proper that the House would acknowledge that since July 2014 - not before that because precious little was achieved before then - a number of important developments happened, as I outlined, and we are seeing a significant improvement in this most embarrassing situation. It is not just embarrassing for us as a people but also embarrassing for us internationally given the hospitality and welcome our forefathers have received over the years. In the spirit of unity and collegiality that this House is known for, I urge that we give the Minister the opportunity to make his mark in resolving the issue. This is in no way disrespectful to Senator Norris's Bill because I know the motivation behind it and the commitment to human rights he has shown through his role in Seanad Éireann and in taking cases to the European Court of Human Rights as far back as the late 1980s.