Get to the vote.
Sentiment score: 0.00
Who is supporting it?
Sentiment score: 0.44
I am not opposed to this amendment at all. My point is probably more relevant to the next amendment, but heaven knows if we will ever get there. Of course, we should have transparency in relation to contracts, but that should be the lowest bar. Our position is that we should be moving towards State-owned reception centres. I fear that supporting an amendment such as this enshrines privatisation into the system, which is something I absolutely could not support.
Sentiment score: -0.06
We voted against the last amendment because we feared it would enshrine privatisation in the system. We make no apologies for that. We are dealing with a Bill that enshrines the detention of children in the system. When we talk about introducing a per person cap, we present the image that asylum seekers are somehow being kept in the lap of luxury. There is rightfully a lot of talk about profiteering. From the foundation of the State, it has always monetised other people's poverty and oppression. However, we are not talking about the fact that thousands of men are given sleeping bags and sent to the canal. That is one of my problems with the conversation that is going on at the moment. We are reiterating the failure of a badly designed State system. I do not want to enshrine the means by which that can continue. I fundamentally believe in State reception centres. Best practice, as laid out in the Catherine Day report, was to have seven. That was updated to nine. At the moment, we have one, and that one was dubiously purchased. While we are so far away from that, I do not want to enshrine the means by which we can keep privatising this system and seeing it as the norm and something to be managed rather than something we are seeking to eradicate, as we should. I have reservations about placing a cap on the amount of money paid per individual. I do not know exactly what that cap would be. It would be useful to have a sense of that. I understand Sinn Féin had previously said €71 but that is not contained in the amendment in front of me. I have reservations. I am interested in hearing the Minister of State's response before we decide how to vote.
Sentiment score: -0.08
I move amendment No. 20: In page 28, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “(14) The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the carrying out of procedures in respect of a minor under this Part, in accordance with Article 14(1) of the Eurodac Regulation.”.
Sentiment score: 0.28
I move amendment No. 21: In page 32, to delete lines 14 to 18. In the first instance, I will speak about amendment No. 21. Let me quote the subsection of the Bill I am seeking to remove so we will have a sense of it. It provides: Where a member of An Garda Síochána, an immigration officer or an officer of the Minister has reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the interests of public policy or national security for an applicant to whom paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (4) applies to be subject to the obligation referred to in subsection (1), the member or officer may give the applicant a direction referred to in subsection (2). The direction refers to detaining and screening. Striking out the subsection would mean officers cannot direct people with lawful residency permission to attend screening centres on the basis of vague, undefined grounds. It also cuts off the path to grounds for arrest and detention. By definition, the people in question are not international protection applicants and as such, the State has no business arresting and detaining them under this legislation. It looks like illegitimate arrest and detention on the grounds of racial profiling. I am very cautious about how we legislate for detention in this country. It will be the defining part of this Bill. We are steamrolling through something that has monumental consequences and, while not looking to the future, we do not seem to be particularly reflective about our past. I think about the apology the Taoiseach made today in the Chamber and other apologies that have been made. We have a gruesome history of institutional incarceration in this country. I am really apprehensive about how this Bill will legislate not only for continuation but also for enhancement. We are legislating, in the subsection I am seeking to strike out, for the detention of people who have committed no crime at all. Our history demands that we tread more cautiously than we are at this point, which is why I am seeking to strike out the subsection.
Sentiment score: -0.15
Before the Minister came in, the Minister of State talked about being a true democrat and about the Government having a democratic right to legislate. Nobody is refuting that. However, if the Minister knocked at any door in this country, as all of us across the Chamber do, who would ask that a victim of trafficking be compelled to go to a screening centre? There is no obligation on that. Screening procedures are not designed to ensure early trafficking detection. There are no clear referral pathways in the Bill to the national referral mechanism framework to identify and support victims of human trafficking and modern slavery. None of that exists in the Bill at the moment. We add a simple amendment where, if an applicant is presumed to be or is identified as a victim of trafficking, they will not be compelled to go to a screening centre where they can be detained. The Minister said it is for a potential maximum of two days, but there is no guarantee of that. Two days for a person who has been a victim of a horror unimaginable to all of us is a lifetime. It compounds trauma. It is unnecessary by any measurement. I would be interested to hear the Minister's reason as to how he will not be supporting a simple amendment such as this.
Sentiment score: -0.21
In the first instance, a victim of trafficking will be identified by their vulnerability assessment. That is provided for under the special reception conditions. I am surprised the Minister did not know that. Given the day that we had today in the Dáil when another State apology was made, I cannot help thinking of the words of Christine Buckley. I am sure most of us around the Chamber remember the incredible work of Christine Buckley, who shone a light into one of the darkest corners in this State and finally delivered a State apology for victims of institutional incarceration. Christine had a phrase which she used constantly: " I believe you before you open your mouth". That was Christine's line. We are now standing in the Chamber processing potentially the most important legislation of certainly the next five years and it factors in detention. We are having a discussion about why should we believe a person when they come forward and say they were a victim of trafficking. We have talked about categories. What category of person does the Minister think would stand in front of another person and falsely say that they had been a victim of trafficking or modern slavery? I do not know that individual. I have not met that individual. I do want the Minister to legislate for that individual. I want to legislate for a humane and compassionate system in which we actually build trust into our legislation. The Minister might say that this is some sort of nonsense on my part, but I know what the opposite looks like, and it does not look like the type of system that is reflective of a republic that has learned the lessons for which it previously apologised for.
Sentiment score: 0.01
I reiterate that the screening procedures, as designed, are not designed to ensure early detection of human trafficking and modern slavery. There is also no clear referral pathway in the Bill in regard to the national referral mechanism. That is really important because I think something that has not really been understood yet in the 13 hours we have given to this Committee Stage is that this Bill comes into law on 12 June. The Minister does not yet have the multi-annual national referral mechanism set up for victims of trafficking. That is an extraordinary gap. I hope we will get to vote on this amendment so I will be quick.
Sentiment score: -0.05