This Bill has the potential to not only be a disaster but to be a disaster in a way that impacts the lives of people in this State who are very vulnerable. I want to make it clear right from the off that when this fails - and I have no doubt it is going to fail - it will be the Minister's failure and his alone. This is without question some of the most important legislation we will deal with in this Dáil term, but from the very first moment the Minister has behaved in a way that was dismissive of the justice committee and has been extraordinarily vague about some of the most important aspects of the Bill. During pre-legislative scrutiny, I sat aghast while NGOs and legal bodies talked about the omissions from the Bill. On Second Stage, we tried to make it somewhat better but the Minister brought it into the Dáil rather than give proper select committee scrutiny of it. He knew that the implications of doing so were that we would not get to discuss all the gaps or all the amendments. I had more than 100 amendments and I think we got to two of them. That is grossly insulting to the process and to the importance of the issue. There was a point where we could have had a really engaging and constructive debate on this in the Chamber. Deputy Carthy would probably disagree on a lot in terms of our approach to this area but what we will agree on fundamentally is that this was an incredibly undemocratic way to approach such important legislation. The Minister has tabled 90 amendments in a three-hour debate. In the Minister's estimation, how many of these amendments does he think we will get to and that are worthy of being scrutinised? The people elected us to assess laws and carry out proper scrutiny but, once again, on this Stage, when the Bill has come back from the Seanad, there are 90 amendments and three hours for debate knowing full well we will never get to discuss them. Even if we talk about legal counselling, which the Minister brought up in the first amendment, it is still incredibly watery and vague and mostly undefined. There is no clarity on standards, on who will deliver it or on accountability. This has been raised time and again. In the Seanad, Senator Patricia Stephenson set a very basic and reasonable standard, in that legal counselling should be delivered by a qualified legal professional, individually and in-person and, crucially, that it was not to be a substitute for legal representation. These amendments were the bare minimum but we are still struggling. There are factors such as family reunification. Refugee family reunification is genuinely one of the cruellest aspects of these measures. In all of the time we have had to discuss this Bill in the Dáil, we have never gotten around to discussing an amendment relating to this or the policy itself because there has been so little time. I heard the Minister speaking in the media and he talked about the fact we had three different sessions and everybody had an opportunity to contribute but he knew full well that was not the case. There was not proper scrutiny of legislation. This is not a way of doing business and when this fails, it will be the Minister's failure.
Sentiment score: 0.03
An army of lawyers.
Sentiment score: 0.00
This might be the last time the Minister answers the question here. One of the problems I have with the Bill in its totality is the fact the Minister has accepted and said previously that some 90% or more of people who claim asylum here come through the common travel area. In a scenario where somebody is coming through the common travel area, that person does not tell us where the first nation he or she is fleeing from is. What information would be used to establish where that person may have come from previously if he or she came through the common travel area but has not given any other information beyond that? That is particularly relevant when it comes to detention. How would the Minister establish where that person came from, if he or she came through the common travel area, and how would that work for the purpose of detention?
Sentiment score: -0.15
As it relates to the amendment relating to sharing data, if a person flies from his or her home country outside the EU straight to the UK and then arrives here through the common travel area, he or she is not going to feature in any Eurodac database. What information would potentially be shared with the UK and under what regulation or law would that be done as it pertains to this legislation?
Sentiment score: 0.46
No.
Sentiment score: -0.30
Do we have data for how many people arrive and claim asylum here, presumably from the common travel area, who do not feature in the Eurodac database? Presumably we at least have that information. This will become quite important when it comes to which data we share with the UK. The Minister said a few minutes ago that he will soon legislate to make the UK a safe third country. I appreciate he can legislate all he wants for that, but the UK has been explicit that it will not take returns of migrants or refugees. That will create a significant lacuna in the law which I worry about the consequence of because, we will get to it shortly, but we are legislating for detention here also and detention of minors, so that will create a real gap in the law that none of this is addressing.
Sentiment score: 0.10
I have a very brief question. Just to confirm, when the Minister says "places of detention", does he mostly mean prisons?
Sentiment score: 0.00
When we speak about places of detention, we are speaking about our prisons. The Minister knows, because we have had this conversation countless times, that our prisons are already overwhelmed. We have a scenario where there are people in our prison system who are awaiting deportation. That, in turn, is leading to a scenario where we are adding a burden to a system that is already broken. I appreciate that the Minister said we may have to look at something in the future. I would very much want to be over the scrutiny of that in terms of what type of building it is. Until that point, however, it would be impossible for me to vote in favour of what is proposed in light of what we already know about our prison system. I will be calling a vote.
Sentiment score: -0.14
Nobody is disputing that for a second. Given the fact that we have a broken system of incarceration at this moment, however, the number of people being placed there is also adding exponentially to the suffering that is being experienced by the prison population and by people who are in prison are awaiting deportation. Until we have a solution - potentially the one the Minister outlined, although that would require oversight - this is going to place an extra demand on a system that is already broken. This is another aspect of this rushed accommodation. We also have another scenario that I am very concerned about whereby when somebody comes through the common travel area, we cannot establish to where they should be returned while awaiting deportation. You are going to have a person in almost indefinite incarceration awaiting deportation to a place we cannot determine because we do not have in place the arrangements with the UK that we should and that the Minister says we potentially will. We are going to have a system where somebody is indefinitely incarcerated in an overwhelmed prison system and the impacts that will have on that person and all of us. This is one of the reasons I am against the Bill in its entirety.
Sentiment score: -0.26
As we are approaching the end of the debate and are about to reach the guillotine I will speak to several of the amendments at once. The Minister used the term "family unity" in his contribution, which gives me the opportunity to speak about his family reunification changes. Of the measures contained within this Bill, that one is not based on any evidence and seems purposely designed, in the Minister's own words which he has reiterated time and time again, to send some form of message, but I am not sure the recipients of the message he is trying to send are deserving of the cruelty that is contained with it. Family reunification is provided for in international law precisely because it enables a scenario where somebody who has not only come here in search of sanctuary but has actually been given refugee status can be reunited with an immediate family member. The current process involves about 18 months on a waiting list and a year. The Minister is changing what was previously three to two, meaning a person will have to wait the best part of three or three and a half years, if they are given refugee status, to be reunited with a child or an immediate family member. This has never in any way had a great impact on the system. The numbers are fairly minuscule. When the Minister tried to explain the policy he is announcing to me in the Chamber a couple of months back he seemed to be confusing different types of family reunification with the one specific to what we are speaking about now, which is refugee family reunification. Even at this late stage, I ask the Minister to reconsider that. It is something that actually aids not only the person who has received refugee status but also the communities in which he or she has start to rebuild his or her life. I also implore the Minister in respect of Seanad amendment No. 76, pertaining to healthcare. Has the Minister taken a trip to Safetynet on Amiens Street?
Sentiment score: 0.06
Safetynet on Amiens Street. It is a front-line service that deals with the most marginalised vulnerable groups and provides immediacy in terms of healthcare. The staff down there have stories that would send a shudder down most of our spines about providing healthcare to people who were previously in the asylum process but had then received deportation orders and lost access to all medical treatment, including mental health supports, and cancer supports in some scenarios. That is a grisly policy that has ramifications beyond the people who are losing their healthcare support because it means they are left in a community devoid of mental health supports and the medications that go with them. I will ask two things of the Minister. First, I ask him to reconsider family reunification and, second, to visit Safetynet on Amiens Street and hear the testimony. It might be very eye-opening in terms of some of the issues we discussed in the Chamber and the issues that stem from them.
Sentiment score: -0.07
You have ignored it completely.
Sentiment score: -0.32
Immediate family.
Sentiment score: 0.00