Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

As the Minister will be aware, we have very recently discussed issues related to this Bill in debates on the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2020. I appreciated our engagement on wider issues concerning our international protection and immigration system and the reforms that are needed. I know the Minister is very much aware of the need for those reforms and is looking with great interest at the Day report. I really welcomed the indication she gave at the weekend that she would look at regularisation for those who are undocumented in Ireland. This is appropriate, particularly in light of our own history of migration.

This Bill deals with a very specific concern. It comes at a time of unprecedented international emergency in the form of a global pandemic. As of August 2020, 79 million people worldwide had been displaced because of the pandemic. The International Organization for Migration and the UN World Food Programme report that the pandemic is taking an immense social and economic toll everywhere. This could create uncertainty in public health systems and difficulties for those who are displaced. As a country in a position to do so, it is important that Ireland demonstrates public health best practice and solidarity with those worst affected by the pandemic. We should take public policy decisions which protect the health, human rights and well-being of individuals, and demonstrate best practice in international public health and migration policy.

The Bill we are proposing today would amend three Acts, the International Protection Act 2015, the Immigration Act 1999 and the Immigration Act 2003. Each would be amended by the insertion of a new section which would place a moratorium on the issuing of deportation or return orders, or the legal effect of such orders, during the period when powers granted to the Minister for Health under section 31A of the Health Act 1947 are in effect. This would effectively ensure that there would be no further issuing or execution of deportation orders during the period for which the State has recognised that we are in a health emergency, as set out in our own Covid-19 legislation. Our definition of the emergency period has a built-in sunset clause which is specified within the Bill. The proposed prohibition of the deportation of persons and the issuing of such orders will expire when our emergency Covid-19 legislation expires. The two provisions are tied together. As the Minister will be aware, that legislation currently extends until June.

I have previously had some engagement on this issue with the Minister of State, Deputy James Browne, on a Commencement matter. He noted that there was initially a policy of ensuring that only positive decisions would be issued. Only persons receiving a positive decision were informed so they could make relevant arrangements. Negative decisions, including deportation orders, were not issued in the early part of the pandemic. The issuing of such orders then resumed. As the Minister will be aware, we know from responses to parliamentary questions that 469 people have been issued with deportation orders since March.

It is very important that we review this and return to the question of positive decisions. Our legislation would resume this policy. It is a fundamental point that we should not issue such deportation letters. We also spoke in previous debates about the impact of these deportation orders. Their language is very clear and very hard. They state that a recipient is to present for deportation at a specific date. We know that people have even been asked to present for deportation this month, just before Christmas. The Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, have previously stated that a pragmatic approach is taken. However, orders requiring persons to present for deportation are being issued. Some 469 persons have been issued with such orders. If the Minister is not in a position to accept this Bill, as indicated by her motion, I urge her to indicate how she will move towards a position of issuing positive decisions only through policy, and how she will ensure that the 469 persons who have already received such letters can know that they are safe for the period of the pandemic.

From speaking to Members of the Oireachtas of all parties and none I know that many in the Dáil and Seanad are working with their local communities. Many are aware of the situation of individuals who are deeply embedded in their community. They will be aware that when deportation orders arrive at a time of great collective distress, the distress and fear is not confined to the recipients. There is a huge ripple effect on their colleagues, communities and in some cases partners. Some of the recipients of deportation orders have long-term partners here in Ireland. It is not just the fact of deportation that has a negative effect, but the very fact of such letters and the distress associated with them. They create situations where people want to gather to support somebody who they feel is under threat. People travel all the way to Dublin to sign in with the Garda National Immigration Bureau, not knowing if this will be the last time. They do not know if they will ever go back to their places of residence or if they will be deported at that point.

Some of my colleagues will be speaking about specific cases we have heard about, including health workers, arts workers, key community volunteers and people who have been playing very active roles in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Some people in our immigration system have done extraordinary work in this regard. This is not confined to front-line health work, but also includes social work and community work.

As I have said before, I welcome the Minister's indication that she is looking at the process of issuing residency permits for the 17,000 undocumented migrants in Ireland. It is a sensible decision that will address some of the problems stored up in the past. It is a chance for us to move to something like a new page in our approach to these issues. Our modest proposal would be complementary to that. It would allow space for real consideration of the process of regularisation and the many other recommendations made in the report of Dr. Catherine Day. The Minister will be aware of those recommendations. The Day report is quite clear on the problems with the International Protection Office, IPO, initiatives, the questions in the interview process and the periods allowed for people to respond to various issues. This was one of my concerns about the Minister's motion. It is procedurally a little strange for a Government to respond to a Bill with a motion. Normally a Government would simply support a Bill, decline to support it or defer. The motion includes several pieces of text about the reasons the Minister feels she cannot support the Bill. Unfortunately it does not contain assurances about the actions she will take. It is really important that she gives those assurances today.One of the aspects of the amendment about which I have particular concern is that it seems to reinforce the issue of the five days. Persons receive letters telling them they have five days in which to indicate that they will voluntarily leave the State and that they may face deportation if they do not. The Minister of State, Deputy James Browne, previously indicated that the Government was looking at the possibility of a 30-day period, which was a recommendation in Dr. Catherine Day's report. Such a period of time would allow people to seek legal advice, to talk to communities and to see what the situation would be if they were to leave voluntarily. It is a more appropriate period of time. I hope the fact the five-day period is mentioned in the amendment does not mean that the Minister is not looking at the question of a 30-day period for such notifications, as I believed she was.

My colleague and others will talk about the global situation. We cannot say that countries around the world are safe at this time when we are facing a global pandemic. The principle of non-refoulement referred to in Article 33(1) of the 1951 convention is very clear. It states that nobody should be sent to a territory in which their life or freedom will be threatened on the basis of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. As I said before, it is not simply a question of whether people may be persecuted on those bases but of whether they may be less able to access essential and necessary health services at a time of general danger based on these criteria. There is a real case to be made that the State has a duty of care and protection. It is also the case that international travel in itself, which we discourage except where essential, creates danger.

If the Minister cannot accept our Bill today, and it seems she cannot, will she tell us what we can tell the 469 persons who have already received deportation orders? Can she give them assurance that they will not be deported while the pandemic is under way? Is she moving back towards a position of making positive decisions with regard to the issuing of any further letters? Crucially, can we ensure that persons are not required to travel to Dublin to check in with the Garda National Immigration Bureau with letters that tell them they are going to be deported, because that is a real concern? I hope the Minister will indicate that she will use this time, when deportation is inappropriate due to the pandemic, to address the wider issues, to implement some of the positive recommendations in the Day report and to move those who have been here for eight or 12 years and who are deeply involved in their communities towards a position of regularisation over those six months.