David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman. I very much welcome his ruling. I have raised this matter over many years, as the Minister knows. I welcome the Minister. I think he is a decent man. There have been some improvements but they have been gradual, painstaking and slow. I introduced legislation in this area to the House in 2014 and the then Minister, Senator Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, said that the whole matter would be resolved within six weeks. Two years later, it has not been addressed sufficiently.

I welcome Senator Billy Lawless's speech. He made important points about the Supreme Court judgment. It is refreshing that somebody who has campaigned so vigorously for the undocumented Irish in the United States, of whom there are 50,000, should see this as directly analogous to the treatment of asylum seekers in Ireland. This is a case that those of us who have been campaigning on the issue of direct provision have made over many years.

I would also like to point to the specific difficulties of gay people who apply for asylum. In the past they were asked questions about not looking gay or about being married. There is a compulsion on people in these societies to marry. It was the same in this country not so very long ago. If they are denied asylum, having acknowledged their sexual orientation, they face very considerable dangers when they go back home, amounting to death in some cases. One has to be terribly careful about the way in which these particular applications are processed.

It is ironic that the direct provision system was introduced on Human Rights Day in 1999, particularly as it has universally been seen as a breach of people's human rights. There has also been some improvement in the International Protection Appeals Tribunal. I very much welcome that. I look back to the days when Ms Justice Harding Clark, in a case involving a Sudanese asylum seeker, said:

Sometimes the court is called upon to review a decision which is so unfair and irrational and contains so many errors that judicial review seems an inadequate remedy to redress the wrong perpetrated on an applicant. This is such a case.

This is the history with which we are dealing. I am very glad that has been cleared up.

With regard to the Minister's speech, there are some good things in it but it is also a bit like the curate saying "good in parts". The Minister says that if refugees and asylum seekers got full social welfare and if some were outside the system they would be vulnerable to theft. Every citizen in this country who is in receipt of social welfare could be banged on the back of the head and his or her money taken. That is not a justification for the Minister at all.

Mr. Justice McMahon was mentioned. We really owe him a debt of gratitude for the work he has done. I see the Minister nodding in agreement. Mr. Justice McMahon is not uncritical of the system. Just last year he described the provisions as continuing to be - and he used these words - "narrow" and "mean". That is not unequivocal support for the Government's position. The Minister mentioned 98% of the McMahon report's recommendations. I have been through this several times with different Ministers. That figure conceals the fact that the Government is saying that they have been implemented or are in progress.The phrase "in progress" muddies the water. I do very much welcome the fact we now have a single application procedure. This is a major advance and it would be very mean-minded not to acknowledge that.

The Minister said asylum seekers will soon have access to the labour market, but when? This is not the result of a Government initiative but of a Supreme Court decision. Residents being given access to the services of the Ombudsman is excellent. I am very glad of that. On the business of negative stereotypes being promoted in this House, I very much doubt that anybody in Ireland is watching this debate as it takes place so I do not think it is going to have a huge impact. I did introduce legislation, the Immigration Reform (Regularisation of Residency Status) Bill, in 2014 and again in 2016. Under section 7, which is the principal business, people would have been entitled to reside in the State and would have enjoyed the same rights to travel within, to or from the State as those to which Irish citizens are entitled. They would have had the same freedom to practise religion and so on. They would have been entitled to seek and enter into employment. There would have been the right to form or be a member of any association or trade union, to have access to the courts, and to have access to education. This is a very important point which has been delayed for far too long. It is urgent that it is now addressed because it is an extraordinary situation. People who have gone through the Irish education system up to secondary school and who apply to go to university are charged the same rate as people from outside the European Union. They are having to scrape together €10,000. On €19.20 a week - I note that my colleagues left out the 20 cent - it would take a hell of a long time to save up €10,000. This needs to be addressed urgently.

I would say the Minister has shown some progress but it is slow, painstaking, not quick enough and the aspect of the right to work, which is only a commitment so far, has only been entered into by the Government as a result of a Supreme Court decision. Thank God for the Supreme Court and the humane and decent men and women who serve upon it.