David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The application of the proposed regularisation framework to persons seeking international protection, as compared with persons whose presence in the State is irregular, is considered to be inappropriate. Persons seeking international protection status are not irregularly present in the State as such persons are legally present until such time as their protection application is finalised, at which point their temporary permission to reside in the State ceases to be valid. The State has a legal obligation under national and EU law to properly and fairly investigate all protection applications made in this jurisdiction. Applications must be examined individually and decisions must be based on the specific merits of each case. It must also be emphasised that broad regularisation programmes are problematic, in particular as they could give rise to unpredictable and potentially very costly impacts across the full range of public and social services.

The Senators' Bill wishes to replace the existing executive discretion for those with assessed and failed protection applications and to allow them to be subject to a fair individual assessment of their humanitarian needs. I do not believe that automaticity is a higher standard than fair humanitarian consideration on a case-by-case basis.

The new single application procedure and the continued examination by an international protection officer, as underpinned by the International Protection Act in a system supported by UNHCR standards, is considered the way forward. It is the effective functioning of that new system which will reassure our UK and EU counterparts in the negotiations ahead and not a standing amnesty as this Bill proposes.

Without going into the detail, the Bill needs to be examined to ensure that it does not give rise to a number of significant questions including: the lack of clarity therein in regard to what happens to extant protection applications in circumstances where the applicant stands to gain the automatic residency provided for in section 6; the automaticity with which residence must be granted without any prior consideration of exclusion grounds of the type set out in section 8 - at a minimum, national security and criminal background checks would have to be considered; and the potential legal difficulty arising from section 5 which would require the revocation of deportation orders lawfully made, thus calling into question the basis on which the order was made in the first place.

Accordingly, and for reasons related to the substantial change in context which I have already set out, the Government has tabled an amendment to reflect the consideration needed before the House passes such a Bill. Our key concerns to be examined are summarised as follows: in 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 EU on retaining the common travel area is not weakened in the context of the UK's decision to leave the European Union; to allow for the commencement of the International Protection Act 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; 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 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.

Such a careful consideration can only result in better law. I hope that the Senators will acknowledge the significant efforts made by the Government to address longstanding and difficult issues in regard to Ireland's protection system since this Bill was first tabled in 2014. The radical actions taken to address the length of time involved have had a hugely positive impact on those people whose interests are addressed in this Bill. The original context in which this Bill was introduced is no longer the case, as our actions have ensured the length of time landscape has been radically changed.

I have outlined the key policy concerns, particularly in regard to the upcoming negotiations on the common travel area and why it is essential that the House agrees to the amendment to defer deliberation on this Bill at this time. In addition, the deferral allowed time for the commencement of the single protection procedure and to continue the ongoing process of the case-by-case determination of those longest in the system.

The International Protection Act is only now coming into force and we have to give it time. It is a very good Act and will shorten the timescale considerably but I appeal to Senators to give it time. If people spend less time in the system and decisions are made quickly, a lot of the other issues raised by the Senators automatically fall. If people spend less time in the system, the right to work comes much sooner. Some schemes at third level have now been introduced and NUI Galway brought in some of them last week. There is a recognition across the country that there is a need to support people who have been granted status here.

We are not voting against this Bill but putting it in abeyance and Senator Clifford-Lee is right to hold me responsible for making it happen. We are parking it for a while to give the Act a chance to work and to bring about some of the things in this area which my predecessor, Senator Ó Ríordáin, was instrumental in starting and for which I pay tribute to him. I wish to make it clear that during this period, the House can be assured that the Government intends to proceed with its planned course of action on the implementation of the new single applications procedure and to maintain our commitment to implementing the remaining recommendations of the working group on the improvements that can be made to the current protection system. I am committed to doing all I can to make sure those recommendations are implemented. I have been to the centres to see for myself what is going on so I urge Senators to support the amendment, taking into account the major policy implications for the operation of the common travel area and in the best interests of our protection process in a time of great reform and change. It was only last week that the UK vote occurred so we have to be very careful.

The Bill does not actually refer to direct provision.Senator Ó Ríordán referred to the programme for Government. I am not sure why it was removed from the draft but many reports are not mentioned in the programme for Government. However, as the Senator knows, the implementation is under way and I am committed to that. There are approximately 4,270 people in direct provision today. I do not know the source for the figure of 3,500 being there for four years which Members have mentioned. The vast majority of the 4,270 have been in direct provision for less than three years. The landscape has changed radically since 2014 when the Bill was first introduced - Senators should acknowledge that - and 80% of the McMahon report has been, or is being, implemented. The Tánaiste is committed to implementing the rest. We are not sitting on our laurels on this but working hard to implement it. Some of it quite challenging, as Senators will appreciate.

The McMahon group report did not recommend an amnesty, as the Bill does. Huge numbers of people have been granted status under the expedited process. Work is ongoing and the reform of direct provision is a priority. The other side of this is the issue of integration, which is very important. There is the granting of status side and the integration side, which is crucial. I am reminded of the huge swell of support we had for the Special Olympics because I have been contacted by communities across the country who are anxious to support and help people who have left hell on earth, as it were, in other countries and come here. The communities want to help and we are engaging with them as well. If Senators can assist in that, we would be most grateful. If they are aware of communities that wish to do something practical to assist and support, they can assist their communities in that regard. It would be very helpful.

There was a reference to 2,500 people being in direct provision for four years or more but the latest figure available is that it is approximately 700. That is too many but it is not 2,500. It is a work in progress and there are many challenges. I am up for the challenge the Senators have laid down today. I thank them for their passionate, well-researched and good debate so far and I look forward to hearing more contributions.