I will make a couple of broad remarks that I think have been emphasised by the fact that at this Stage, the last Stage in the Oireachtas, the Minister has to bring forward further, albeit technical, changes to this legislation. The Minister's entire approach to this legislation has verged on the reckless. It is absolutely reckless in terms of his refusal to allow proper scrutiny of a piece of legislation that he has described as the most comprehensive legislation dealing with migration in decades. The approach has been guided not by what is in the best interests of the Irish people or delivering an international protection system that works and resolves the dysfunction that the parties of Government have created, but has been directed solely and entirely by the need to live up to the provisions of the EU migration and asylum pact. This is a pact which Sinn Féin told the Government there was no need to sign up to and which undermines Irish sovereignty and our ability to manage our migration system. It is a pact that takes no account of the unique circumstances of this nation, which is a nation divided, with one part within the European Union's structures and the other part operating outside them. It is a pact that takes no account of the fact that we operate within a common travel area with a state that is not part of the EU framework or part of the pact. In its efforts to through bull a Bill with the sole intention of adhering to the terms of the EU pact, the Government has been absolutely haphazard in its approach. It has undermined the role of Oireachtas at every turn. I will remind the House of that approach. The first stage was the heads of the Bill being brought before the Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. In an effort to try to facilitate the Department with what is comprehensive legislation, the committee tried to deal with it as quickly as possible. The testimony and written submissions of all the witnesses may have come from different perspectives, but they all agreed that the Government’s approach was shambolic, that the heads of the Bill were incomplete and that this would not allow proper scrutiny to take place. The pre-legislative scrutiny report agreed across party lines set out very clearly that the decision of the Government to tie us in, lock, stock and barrel, to the EU migration and asylum pact was completely wrong, called on the Government parties to try to reconsider and set out very clearly that the gaps in the heads of the Bill meant it was not possible to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government ignored all of that and brought forward a comprehensive 200-page Bill. Before the Dáil had even finished the Second Stage debate, the deadline for amendments had already passed. As a result, Second Stage counted for nothing. It did not matter what any Member of this House contributed to that debate, including, perhaps, inspiring amendments from either the Government or the Opposition. It was all just a box-ticking exercise. The list of proposed Committee Stage amendments was as comprehensive as you will see, but the Government guillotined the debate and refused to allow the amendments to be discussed and analysed in the place where they should have been, which is the committee rooms of these Houses. The Government guillotined and curtailed the debate on the legislation. This was despite the fact most of the amendments to the Bill, which had just gone through Second Stage, were put forward by the Minister. Despite there being numerous important amendments that this House should have had the opportunity to discuss, the Minister refused to allow that to happen and, indeed, criticised Members of this House for spending too long, as he saw it, discussing some amendments. Those amendments, if I may remind the Minister, related to community engagement, community impact assessment and to the gross profiteering taking place within the international protection and accommodation system and the obscene amount of being spent on that accommodation. Last year alone, €1.3 billion, for which there is no transparency or accountability, was spent on IPAS accommodation. There were amendments to address the failings of the legislation and the EU pact and to address the glaring black hole that is the common travel area and its implications for the Bill. The Minister criticised Members for spending time discussing those amendments when it was he who refused to allow them be debated in committee, and he then imposed a guillotine. The Bill then went to the Seanad. It is now back here for a debate that will last just three hours. What has the Minister brought forward? There are 90 pages of amendments. Who are they from? Some 267 of them have been tabled by the Minister. This is the final part of the debate on the Bill. Once again, rather than detailed scrutiny, that debate is to be limited to three hours. That is absolutely disgraceful. The Minister has brought forward technical amendments, but there is no way the public can be confident that there are not other gaps in the legislation. The difficulty is that after today, the next gap or gaps - and they will probably be glaring gaps - will be identified not by an elected representative of the people but by a judge in the High Court. I have predicted on every Stage that this legislation and the Minister’s approach to it are going to result in High Court cases. I believe some of them will be successful. There is no way anybody can say that there has been proper democratic scrutiny of this legislation because the Government has prevented it. Ultimately, this will result in infringement proceedings at European Commission level because the Minister has included provisions in this legislation that he has no ability to deliver. There is no confidence regarding the time it takes to process applications and to do so fairly. All the evidence in this regard points to a dysfunction that is embedded in the IPAS system. There is not a chance that anybody can have confidence in decisions being enforced. As for any prospect that the matter of the obscene sums of money that have been spent and, I would argue, wasted as a result of the Government's mismanagement will be addressed, nobody can have confidence that this will happen because it has refused, time and again, to put in place mechanisms that will allow transparency in the form of the publication of IPAS contracts and to allow communities to have a real say in what happens. Something incredibly interesting from the past couple of weeks was seeing Simon Harris - he was actually having a go at the Minister - saying communities should have a say in what happens in their areas in the context of IPAS centres. He voted against amendments to that effect in this House just a number of weeks ago, but the good news is that, if we get to it, there is an amendment today that will allow that very provision. What he says is his affair, but it might be just another case of Simon says one thing and Simon does the exact opposite.
Sentiment score: -0.00
This is verging on a charade. There has been no democratic scrutiny of this Bill. It is the Minister’s Bill and his alone. He has been locked into a position by the previous Government to sign us up to a pact with no consideration whatsoever for its implications. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael signed us up to the EU migration and asylum pact not because they thought it would lead to a more efficient system or resolve the dysfunction in the system but simply so they could say in advance of a general election they were doing something about migration when they are doing absolutely nothing. The Minister has concentrated his entire Department’s resources on a single Bill. He is forcing staff and officials to rush from one Stage to another. On every Stage, the legislation has required substantive change. The difficulty is that after today, whatever changes are going to be made will not by made by representatives acting on behalf of the Irish people but by officials within the European Commission or by a High Court judge. I wanted to put those things on record because it is crucially important and the public deserves to know the Government is adopting the exact same shambolic approach to the international protection legislation as it has to the international protection system. That system has led to serious disquiet and division within communities and enriched a very small number of people at the expense of those who are seeking international protection and the communities affected by decisions made by this Government.
Sentiment score: -0.08
In respect of the amendments regarding the Data Protection Act, of course, it is imperative that the full information in terms of decision-making in respect of individuals applying for international protection is known to the Department and that there is the ability to fully appraise the history insofar as it matters for an application of the applicant. As the Minister knows, that is why I have supported signing up to the Eurodac regulation. In that sense and in that instance, it makes sense that we would have the ability to share information with other EU states. The Minister has highlighted a glaring deficiency, in that, as Deputy Gannon has said, it is broadly accepted that the majority of IPAS applicants at this stage probably come through the common travel area. However, we cannot say with any certainty in what proportion. As I say, the Minister's analysis assumes that everybody who does not claim international protection at one of our ports or airports must have come through the common travel area. There is a fundamental flaw with that. International evidence suggests that a portion - which varies, and sometimes the variations can be quite big - of international protection applicants who arrive to the State with a valid visa but for another reason, in the first instance, subsequently claim international protection, as is their right under international law. It is nonsensical and hard to believe that the Minister's Department does not compile information on the numbers of people who enter the State visa-free or with short-term travel visas, student permits or employment permits. We need that information. If we are talking about having a managed migration system, we need to understand all of that. The Minister seems to be indicating he has that information but he will not share it with me. I have asked him plenty of times by way of parliamentary questions. His Department tells me that the information is not available and, while it is compiled on individual applications, it is not collated.
Sentiment score: 0.13
I am. This is in respect of data. There are a number of amendments there. If the Ceann Comhairle wants to go through them all, she can figure it out while I ramble on. I was coming to an end anyway. Of course, none of us, nor the public, need to know personal information, but the Department needs to have it comprehensively. In terms of general information and data, the Government needs to be much better at sharing it with the public. The Minister made a statement. He or his predecessor said that 90% of applicants were coming through the common travel area. Will he acknowledge that there is no way he can say that unless he has the information that I sought and that his Department told me does not exist. Is the Minister going to ensure that information is going to be collated and published, and, if so, when?
Sentiment score: 0.12
The Minister is missing the point I was making about the collation of data. On one hand, he is saying that when applicants make an application and give their background and history, we take them at face value. The initial assumption is that they are telling the truth. On the other hand, he is saying that we cannot know unless there is control on the Border. The point I am making is that if we are to have a properly managed migration system, which I think everyone agrees we need even if they disagree about what it might look like, it means that in respect of international protection, it is important that to the best of the State's ability we get the personal information that is required to process the applications and the general information and statistical data to inform public policy. Therefore, it is, insofar as it is possible, important to know what states people have come from and what states they have transited through, and then the issues in respect of returns regulations and safe third countries can apply. It is equally important that we would have the information in respect of other mechanisms by which people apply for international protection. As I say, I have submitted quite a number of parliamentary questions. I have, as one must when one is dealing with the Minister's Department, tried rewording things in 15 different ways before the Department answers the question that it knew was being asked in the first place.
Sentiment score: 0.40
I also made a freedom of information, FOI, application after I asked those 15 or 20 different parliamentary questions. I got a response yesterday to my request for the number of IP applicants who had transited through another mechanism. The reply to the freedom of information request stated the Department does not have that information and that it would be too burdensome to collate it. Is that the truth? Does the Minister have the information on the number of IP applicants who previously came on other types of visas?
Sentiment score: 0.29
It absolutely is. If we are talking about-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
This is not the first time I have asked for the information.
Sentiment score: 0.00
I know, but-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
-----we are not going to get to all the amendments because the Minister has guillotined this Stage, as he has all other Stages. I am asking this at this point. I would like clarification. Does the Minister agree that information would be helpful for guiding public policy and, if so, will he ensure it is collated and published?
Sentiment score: 0.29
How do you know?
Sentiment score: 0.00
On that point, the Minister said we know it is 90%. We do not know that. I accept that it is probably the case that a large proportion, if not a majority and perhaps even a substantial majority, of people who claim international protection come via the common travel area. It is one of the reasons we tabled amendments in respect of the common travel area, which the Minister rejected. I have been rightly critical - and will be vindicated as such - of the fact that the Minister is prioritising this legislation rather than pursuing a bilateral agreement with Britain. However, we need to know exactly, percentage-wise, year-on-year, because that is how public policy is decided and developed. Likewise - and I hope I am not too far out because I am trying to think from memory - my understanding is that in one year in Britain, for example, it transpired after analysis that 3% of international protection applicants had previously entered the British state with an education visa. That allowed its Parliament to examine the education visa system to ensure it was robust and could not be used as a back door to bypass employment visa regulations or the international protection system. The Minister says we know whether people originally came on an education, employment or tourism visa, but the fact he will not collate that makes it more difficult for the Houses of the Oireachtas to analyse whether there are areas in public policy that need to be addressed to ensure we have a migration system that is fit for purpose. It is one of the very many areas in which the lack of information and due diligence on the part of the Minister's Department means that public discourse takes place in a vacuum. People can go on Facebook and say that 80% of people who come as tourists from a particular state subsequently seek international protection and no Member of this House can say with certainty that it is downright false because we do not have the information because the Minister's Department will not publish it. I ask again. Will the Minister ensure his Department collates that type of information and publishes it to Members of this House so we can be better guided in public policy discourse?
Sentiment score: 0.22
But I want the exact specifics and the Minister should as well.
Sentiment score: 0.48
I know the Minister does not listen to me, but------
Sentiment score: 0.00
-----I would love for him to listen to himself sometimes, because he has just set out a paradox in terms of his position. He said his Department publishes the nationalities of people seeking international protection on a weekly basis and, on the other hand, he said it would be too burdensome for his Department to collate and publish their origin in terms of visa route. The information would be in exactly the same place. It would be in the application that was made. When people make an application, they state whether they have been in the State on another visa or come through a third country and what the country of origin was. It is just a matter of changing the software so the information is collated. If there is a logical reason - other than it being too much hassle - not to publish this information, the Minister should just say so. This is the problem. With no disrespect to anyone in the Minister's Department, the Irish public does not trust the Department to manage migration. They certainly do not trust it to manage international protection and the more areas the Minister hides from accountability and transparency and the divulging of information, the more it is so. No one wants information about individuals or families; of course not. That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about general information to inform public policy. I have said it again. The Minister clearly does not listen to me because I have said about six times during the course of all these debates that I accept it is very likely that a significant proportion of international applicants come through the common travel area. I accept it is probably a majority and potentially a substantial majority. I accept all of those things. However, the truth of the matter is I cannot say that for sure because the Minister will not give me the evidence that would allow someone to say that for sure. I am not the person who points and says figures like 90%, 85% or 80%. It is the Minister for justice and different Government Ministers who repeatedly cite different figures, which is a bit bizarre in itself. The Minister keeps repeating that but will not provide the public with the data. He says, "Oh well, we can deduct that, take A from B and end up with C", which allows us to think this is probably the situation. It just points to the dysfunction. It points to a haphazard approach that has been the hallmark of how this system has been managed and has led to all the public distrust in the system. What I am trying to do is encourage the Minister to change the approach. Get away from the secrecy. Get away from building walls between information and the public and start building trust again in this area.
Sentiment score: 0.09
I wish to speak to amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 91 in my name. It is important to state very clearly what the Minister is opposing here. This amendment calls on the Minister "to record, and publish in anonymised and aggregate form, annual statistical information on the routes of entry of applicants to whom this section applies, including - (a) the number of applicants presenting at a port or airport, (b) the number presenting inland, (c) the number reporting entry via the Common Travel Area, and (d) the number whose route of entry could not be established, and such information shall be published not later than 31 March each year.”. I still do not think the Government has come to realise just how deep the public's mistrust is in its ability to develop an international protection system that works. There is a flippancy in terms of any discussion of any proposals coming from the Opposition. It is crucially important the public knows how international protection applicants enter the State. It is also crucial, just to repeat the point, what permissions were granted prior to that. It is imperative that we have reliable information on entry routes in order to plan effectively and maintain the public confidence that we have spoken about. We also need to have better information in terms of data with regard to Britain and that is why I repeat that we need to have bilateral arrangements in terms of information sharing, returns and a very clear position on how we deal with our nearest neighbour and the source, as has been acknowledged here, of likely the largest number of international protection applicants. I have asked the Minister on a number of occasions. If I was a Minister and I was told there was information available in the Department that does not and could not prejudice, I would be saying to the Department that we needed to wise up here, get this information, pull it together and publish it. It is certainly nothing to do with personal data, and nobody is seeking that, but I am referring to general aggregated data. I know the Government loves commercial sensitivity as a reason not to provide any information in respect of IPAS but it cannot cite international sensitivity here. If, on the off chance, we get to amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 91, I will be pressing it because it is really important. We hear members of the Minister's party and of Fine Gael talking all the time about wanting to have transparency, accountability and a clear process that works and how setting out the EU migration asylum pact allows everybody to understand how the system works. Yet, every single time the Minister is asked to be open with the public, he refuses. Therefore, if I get an opportunity, I will be moving this amendment.
Sentiment score: 0.27
I move amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 44: After subsection (3), to insert the following: “(4) A provisional representative person or a representative person appointed in relation to an unaccompanied minor shall, in the performance of his or her functions, comply with child specific safeguarding standards, and in particular shall— (a) ensure that all actions taken in respect of the unaccompanied minor are guided by the principles of child protection, child welfare and the best interests of the child, (b) have due regard to the minor’s age, maturity, gender, cultural background, developmental needs and any indicators of trauma or vulnerability, (c) take all reasonable steps to ensure that the unaccompanied minor is protected from harm, exploitation, re-trafficking, secondary victimisation or any treatment that may adversely affect the minor’s physical, psychological or emotional well-being, and (d) ensure that any interviews, assessments, procedures or engagements involving the unaccompanied minor are conducted in a child appropriate, trauma informed and culturally sensitive manner.”. The amendment seeks to strengthen protections for unaccompanied minors by requiring that all provisional and full representatives meet clear, child-specific safeguarding standards. This ensures that every action taken in respect of children is grounded in child protection principles attentive to age, culture, trauma and vulnerability. It obliges representatives to actively protect minors from harm or exploitation and guarantees that all procedures, interviews and assessments are carried out in a child-appropriate, trauma-informed way, reinforcing the best interests principle through the process. It is an important provision that strengthens the legislation and ensures there is no doubt but that there is a child-centred approach when we are dealing with children. There is a broader piece of work around unaccompanied minors. Particularly with younger children, there is clearly often a hidden hand in terms of exploitation of the children entering the system, and we need to be very robust in dealing with that hidden hand and the individuals involved in trafficking minors. For the minors themselves, it is crucial that we have a child-centred approach. That approach must ensure that, in Tusla accommodation in particular, we do not have people claiming to be minors where that is disputed in the same facilities as actual, verified minors. This is where there is a huge question mark around the capacity of Tusla to manage the additional responsibilities this legislation will put on them. I raised this matter with the Minister of State, who said that Tusla would be fine even though Tusla very much is not fine at the moment. There are huge question marks over its ability to undertake the responsibilities it currently has. If we are in a situation where we need a three-tiered system, and two-tiered regarding unaccompanied minors where we have verified children and people for whom there is a dispute over their age - clearly with this latter category, we do not want them in adult-only accommodation either - this creates a big challenge. Tusla is an organisation that is stretched and there has been no clarification from the Minister’s Department or its sister Department that has oversight of Tusla that additional resources, capacity and supports are going to be provided to help it carry out what could become a very difficult task, particularly given that Tusla is currently engaged in quite a number of for-profit contracts for the provision of accommodation for children. That is completely unacceptable.
Sentiment score: 0.25
I will just make a couple of comments on that. The Minister's rationale for refusing to accept the amendment is, I believe, that there is no need for it. I would contest that. On the Minister's latter point, I do not think there is any suggestion that people do not appreciate the challenges that are involved. We have had quite an amount of discussion on this at the Oireachtas justice committee. For sure, the committee members fully appreciate that this is a very difficult situation to manage. In the first instance, we need to ensure that verified minors are not housed with adults. The point I am making is that there needs to be a secondary tier, as it were, for disputed minors because we do not want to have a situation where somebody whose age is disputed ends up in adult accommodation only for it to transpire that they were, in fact, children. It is not that we do not accept or appreciate the challenge. It is just that we do not have confidence in this Government to actually meet that challenge and deal with it. The evidence suggests that Tusla is not meeting its obligations, not only in respect of international protection, but in terms of vulnerable children generally. That creates the issue that needs to be addressed. Therein lies the problem. Tusla will have specific legal obligations as a result of this legislation. I asked the Minister of State, Deputy Colm Brophy, a number of times on Committee Stage what additional resources and measures would be put in place to assure that Tusla had the capacity to deal with the additional obligations it would have. The Minister of State simply answered repeatedly that he was satisfied that it would. That is not good enough and that is not an assurance to this House. I hope the Minister can give us a more substantive reassurance.
Sentiment score: -0.03
Will the Minister respond to the question I asked in terms of Tusla?
Sentiment score: 0.00
You wait for a long time for a bus and then a number of them come at once. A number of my amendments are in this grouping and I will restrict myself to them, considering the timeline. I know amendment No. 1 to Seanad amendment No. 65 has been disallowed but I want to make the case very strongly that we need to end the use of for-profit providers of accommodation for those in Tusla care. That is what this amendment sought to do. A judge in Dublin District Court recently hit out at what he quite rightly described as the profiteering by private operators providing unregulated placements for the most vulnerable children. He described it as wrong and shameful, and he was right. Special emergency arrangements are unregulated placements provided by private operators. They are not compliant with national standards, they are not inspected by HIQA and they are typically in rented buildings. We know from recent reports that up to a quarter of staff working in special emergency arrangements last year did not have the documentation required to work with vulnerable children There is clearly a problem with those providers and whether the amendment is accepted or not, I hope it is something the Government will work on. How is it that every time there are vulnerable people who need accommodation involved, the Government figures out a way whereby a few lads will make a lot of money on it? It is just unbelievable. That could be Tusla and the provision of care for children but where it is absolutely most blatant is in the IPAS system. There is continuing and ongoing failure not only to address the profiteering within the IPAS system but, on the Minister's part, to even acknowledge that it is happening. We know that a small number of private operators have made millions of euro from the Government's dysfunctional approach. What is worse is that there is no transparency, including around what actually qualifies some of these providers to provide these services. The amendment to Seanad amendment No. 66 is simply about ensuring there is some transparency. We have called for a full review of every IPAS contract. The reason for this is that everybody who has looked at these issues objectively and every journalist who has carried out an examination of any IPAS contract has found blatant wastage of public money and a number of scandals have emerged. We do not have to ask politicians or journalists. The Comptroller and Auditor General, the Government's own watchdog, has found major weaknesses in IPAS contracting. The Minister tells us that this cannot happen again or will not happen again but there is nothing in policy form to provide a bit of transparency on that. This is an amendment that the Minister could accept that would send out the message that the Government is learning the lesson when it comes to the lack of transparency within the IPAS system. In the context of my amendments to Seanad amendment No. 82, I am surprised because I clearly heard Simon Harris, the Tánaiste and the leader of a main party in government, say that communities have to be engaged. The Government cannot proceed in the way it has up to now, namely where communities are disregarded and the only criterion to determine where an IPAS centre is located is that an operator has a building and is willing to use it for that purpose. Simon has an opportunity tonight to direct his party's Deputies to vote in favour of this amendment in order to make it clear that IPAS centres should only be placed in areas where the resources are in place to accommodate them and that communities have a real say in what happens to them. That would be better for everybody. It would be better for residents of IPAS centres and local communities. Amendment No. 2 to Seanad amendment No. 82 deals with the absolute lack of due diligence and information regarding beneficial owners of those companies that have received IPAS contracts. Any information on scandals - and there have been plenty - has never come from the Department; it has always come from journalists or independent voices, and sometimes from residents who have raised serious questions. The pre-legislative scrutiny report we talked about earlier warned that due diligence processes for international protection accommodation were completely inadequate. It highlighted the incomplete checks in respect of planning permission, ownership, safety compliance and provider suitably. It concluded that weak oversight and inconsistent verification created financial, legal and operational risks within the accommodation system. If there is nothing to hide, there would be no reason to oppose this amendment. I have to make that point strongly. Amendment No. 3 to Seanad amendments No. 82 states, "The Minister shall, by regulation, prescribe a maximum daily amount payable by the State for accommodation provided to applicants". Again, everything is being done to avoid any kind of transparency. On the notion of commercial sensitivity, as if there is anybody in the private sector going around with €1.3 billion to spend on accommodation. There is nobody in competition with you when it comes to this type of contract because nobody else would spend the amount of money the Department of justice is spending. Anybody else, even if it was devolved to local authorities, would get better value in the morning in terms of the money being spent. There has been a lot of talk about price gouging in recent weeks. There has been serious price gouging going on over the past number of years. The average rate paid per bed rose by 68% from 2022 to 2024. This amendment would empower the Minister to take this by the reins, set a maximum daily rate and ensure it is adhered to. Cases have been throughout this debate and unfortunately the Minister has just refused to listen. It has been the narrative of the past couple of weeks. This Government refusing to listen. The protests in recent weeks were about its refusal to listen with regard to the cost of living and the soaring cost of fuel. When it comes to the international protection system, the Minister has been refusing to listen. He just put all his cards into the EU migration pact basket. He has refused to engage in any constructive way with the Opposition on this Bill. We have repeatedly tried to engage with him in the context of increasing increase transparency and accountability, ensuring community engagement and resolving some of the problems he created in the context of mistrust between the public and Government on this issue. We have also sought to ensure that we get value for money and, ultimately, have an international protection system that works for everyone, namely applicants, local communities and the taxpayer. The Minister has refused time and again to engage, and now we are trying to talk about a number of important amendments in a matter of minutes because, once again, the Government has guillotined the debate on the Bill. The Minister has done himself, his Department, this system and the legislation a disservice with the way he has approached matters from start to finish.
Sentiment score: -0.02
Transparency is what the amendment asks for.
Sentiment score: 0.00