This issue received a great deal of attention in mid-2024. At the time, the Government handed a bit of a gift to the Conservative Government in the UK by the way it communicated this, and the Conservative Government seized it with glee. The Government in Britain was under pressure at the time and tried to take every advantage to capitalise. The Irish Government is potentially in a different situation whereby it can perhaps make more headway in this area. The section on which we are seeking clarity relates to the ability of the Government to make decisions and designate a third country. For this to work to the greatest extent required, though, there needs to be a bilateral agreement with Britain. I hope that the Minister of State can provide me with an update on the progress of any such negotiations. It has been touched on for quite some time. The First Minister, Michelle O'Neill, has raised this issue. It is important that the Irish Government seek to persuade the British Government that it is in the interests of both countries to ensure there is an orderly process to ensure that people are returned in cases where they are unsuccessful in one jurisdiction and then seek to make an application in another or various other circumstances. Obviously, such returns must ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, people are treated with dignity and respect, but it is important that the returns happen in order to ensure that the system works. It should be possible to persuade the British Government that it is in nobody's interest not to reach an agreement. The flows can go in both directions. There could be a see-saw effect, whereby at one stage the flow is in one direction and at another time it goes in the other direction. It should be possible to make headway with the British Government and persuade it of the need for an agreement on returns. That has not happened at this point in time. The space exists for it. Will the Minister of State give us an update as to when this is likely to take place?

Sentiment score: 0.35

There has to be recognition at some stage at that the way in which - to call it "consultation" is to be very generous - was carried out was in many instances completely inadequate. I made a contribution on statements on international protection recently about the need for respect - respect for the rules, of course; respect for the residents and asylum seekers because it is absolutely essential that they be treated with dignity and respect at every stage; and respect for communities. To be honest, however, in many instances, respect for communities went completely out the window. My colleagues have given numerous instances on the matter. There are so many examples of instances where what constituted consultation was simply an email, usually after the fact, sometimes just as a decision was being made and sometimes with incorrect or inadequate information. That created a vacuum. It created a situation that led to distrust, suspicion and hostility. Nothing in that lack of consultation and nothing in those failures can ever justify some of the actions that took place, including arson, intimidation and threats of violence. Nothing of that kind could ever be justified by a lack of consultation. However, it is the case that for the greater part of the community - those who wish to have nothing to do with that kind of behaviour - a huge vacuum was created. The Government has to take responsibility for that. In many respects, as my colleague has said, they are the only criteria that seem to be considered. Many Government documents spoke about the need for criteria and the need for a strategy of some kind for this. It should obviously follow if there is going to be a situation whereby accommodation needs to be provided that there should be a strategy for where it should be located, there should be criteria and there should be logic. It did seem to be the case that the only logic was to find out what was available, regardless of where it was. In many instances it seemed to be in the most marginalised, peripheral and disadvantaged communities in the country. The accommodation was located there without regard for education or transport, whether for the community as a whole or for new residents, asylum seekers and migrants, and whether for education, healthcare or anything like that. There seemed to be no reference to anything like that. There is a planning system in this country and it is there because it recognises that to have an orderly situation in a town, a village or a city, everything has its right place and should be located in a way that makes sense. A very difficult situation was created by the fact that when communities heard there was going to be a development or a use of property in their community, there was no opportunity for them to have their say in any way. There is nothing I can think of in the State where there is no opportunity for the community to have their say. I would say that it put public representatives, including Government representatives, in a very invidious position. In any kind of development, whether for a recycling centre, a bring site, a funeral home or a housing development, at least public representatives can have engagement with the community and tell them there is an opportunity for them to make their submissions, seek legal advice and do whatever they wish to do to engage with the process. There was no avenue in which to direct communities on how they could constructively have their say. This added to the sense of distrust and frustration that was there. In relation to the consultation, in so much as it was there, I will say that people were working hard. There were some such people in the community engagement teams and I acknowledge the work of Cork City Partnership and the hard work it did. Honestly, in some instances people stretched themselves very considerably to make up for the gaps that had been created at a national level. There were also people on the Department side, and I want to instance Eibhlin Byrne for the co-operation I received from her at stages. On the whole, community engagement was under-resourced and stretched beyond belief, and ultimately, the ability of communities to get answers and a sense of what was happening and have their say was not there at all. Even now, in terms of what the Government is talking about, it has been evidently proven to be the case - this was documented for years and years before the Government decided to do anything about it - that public provision is more cost-effective and has better conditions for the residents them private provision. This has been the case for a long time. It has been evident. The Government has adopted this language but in truth the Government's strategy will still only amount to about one third of beds being publicly provided in the coming years. Two thirds of them will remain privately provided, will be more expensive, less able to be overseen and less likely to ensure the conditions are adequate. There needs to be a complete change in approach in what has been outlined here in terms of criteria and a strategy. I am sure the Minister, in response to this, might say something to the effect that yes, we can have discussions but there will be no perfect location. This is very obviously true but there will also be places that are wholly unsuitable, that are largely unsuitable and that are not the right location. The determinations and who makes them are further questions but clearly there will be locations that are wholly unsuitable. Yes, there will not be perfect locations but the very process of identifying what is in a location and what is present will also help to identify what is required in an area when a decision is made to locate such a centre there. Yes, there is no perfect solution but it is very clear that some of the locations chosen were entirely unsuitable. I echo the point made by Deputy Mac Lochlainn on the very point of oversight, ensuring decent conditions and why public provision is so important. It is not acceptable that the Ombudsman for Children does not have access to many locations where children are in this State within the international protection system. This clearly needs to be addressed. It is very obvious gap and there is no justification for not addressing it.

Sentiment score: 0.17