Frances Black (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the Chamber. I am really glad that we have been given a chance to debate this issue. The discussion at the meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice and Equality committee last week left several questions unanswered and much more detail is needed on how Ireland will comply in practice with the EU reception conditions directive, particularly the right to work.

The directive is welcome. It is good to see conditions for asylum seekers being put on a statutory footing and that they will be subject to greater parliamentary oversight. The provisions on access to vocational training and health care and improved support for vulnerable persons such as those who have been the victims of violence or torture are very welcome. We must bear in mind, however, that the directive merely outlines the bare minimum standards. For example, it states asylum seekers will have the right to work no later than nine months after their initial application, but the reality is that the majority of EU member states afford a right to work after six months or less. Ireland should stand up for human rights, especially given that under the International Protection Act 2015, applicants are supposed to receive a decision after six months. More detail is needed on some of the changes to be made under the directive. It states, fore example, that the payments made to asylum seekers must ensure and respect their dignity. Is the Minister satisfied that a payment of €21.60 a week is enough to ensure their dignity, even though it makes it impossible for them to pay for clothes, books, travel and other vital aspects of daily life? The directive also states particularly vulnerable asylum seekers will have access to special reception conditions. What systems will be put in place to identify and support such persons?

Like many of my colleagues, I am most concerned about asylum seekers’ right to work. When we last debated this issue in October, I outlined my worry that the Government's response to the Supreme Court's decision would be overly restrictive. Three months later that, unfortunately, seems to be the case. The interim scheme for employment that has been outlined is deeply restrictive and a shameful attempt at vindicating asylum seekers' constitutional rights. Under this proposal, asylum seekers will be limited to jobs earning over €30,000 and barred from over 60 occupations, including in the construction, health care and hospitality sectors.

Asylum seekers who receive €21.60 a week from the State will be asked to pay up to €1,000 for a work permit. Even as an interim scheme, this is clearly ridiculous. It will disbar the vast majority of asylum seekers from actually seeking employment and not amount to a substantive, effective right to work.

There is a real concern that the scheme will not comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling, meaning that every single day of the four month interim period we will be violating the constitutional rights of asylum seekers. In that context, a legal challenge against the State can be expected. On the basis of the interim scheme, the brave Burmese man who actually persisted and brought the case to the Supreme Court would not be able to accept the position of chef at the direct provision centre in which he is living.

We urgently require further concrete details on how the right to work will operate once the EU reception conditions directive is transposed. My big concern is that what is being introduced as an interim measure will end up being the permanent scheme of employment for asylum seekers. Direct provision was supposed to be a temporary measure in 2000, yet the system still persists nearly two shameful decades later. The call in this Chamber is loud and clear that we do not want a longer term employment scheme under the EU reception conditions directive to be as punitive and restrictive as the interim scheme. We are told that the €1,000 permit fee will be waived, but we need more detail in writing on salary or sectoral restrictions. If such restrictions are put in place, the Government should be willing to justify in writing exactly why it believes it is necessary to stop asylum seekers working in health care services, for example. It would be useful if the Department were to provide a formal outline of all of the changes to be made to the current system and, ultimately, in the longer term scheme under the directive. It could be accompanied by a comparison with the position in other EU countries.

Overall, the right to work is about much more than a job. It is about self-esteem, human dignity and the chance to put one's skills and talents to productive use. It is about one's mental health and the health of one's children. It means better integration into Irish society and better job prospects when asylum seekers exit the carceral system of direct provision. I want to quote what one man in the asylum system who appealed to Judge Bryan MacMahon said. He said:

Just let me work. Let me get up in the morning. Let me put on my clothes and have my breakfast with my children, and come back in the evening and say – today I worked.

This is not someone who is looking for support but someone who wants to be able to support himself and enjoy the basic human dignity given by using his skills and talents. The Government talks about this being a republic of opportunity, but effectively if we deny people the right to work, we condemn them to poverty. Where is the opportunity in that? I urge the Minister to recognise the fatal, restrictive flaws in the interim scheme and ensure it will not form the basis of the employment system once the EU reception conditions directive is transposed.