I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. Several of my colleagues have spoken on it over the last week or so. It is not an understatement to say migration, emigration and the policy that supports the area are complex issues. There is no doubt about that, but the policy we develop in here that finds its way into the legislation on our Statute Book cannot be done by simply appeasing the views of bar stoolers who get their news from Facebook. There is far too much of that in the reactive response we see to this issue. Having assessed the Bill I can only conclude much of what is provided for here is as driven by the politics of the day as it is by our requirements to legislate and comply with the EU pact and the framework we signed a short time ago. In his contribution on this Bill my colleague Deputy Ahern, a lawyer of long standing, said, "A faster, more efficient asylum process is a worthy aim". It absolutely is and would be something that could command the support of a large majority in this House but this Bill is not that. The legislation seems, as Deputy Ahern suggested, more concerned with limiting established and well-understood rights of asylum seekers in ways that are concerning and have been well ventilated by others in this Chamber. This Bill goes well beyond the obligations we have signed up to at EU level and this in itself is telling. What we would expect from the government of a proud liberal democracy – with a sophisticated economy in which our health, IT, financial services, pharma, tourism and care sectors depend on migrant workers – is an informed, evidence-based public campaign to challenge the myths and shibboleths that, when unchallenged, have contributed to members of the Indian community and other people who do not look like me, the Minister and most of us in this Chamber experiencing violence and hate. Instead of the responsible campaign and approach we in Labour have been advocating for some time, we get this Bill. We heard claims recently from the Tánaiste and others that there is some kind of campaign going on to silence him and anyone who might disagree with my position on this matter, or the positions of those of us who might describe ourselves as being on the left. This does not stack up. Hearing comments like that from somebody who has the largest forum in the country from which to pronounce is quite extraordinary. I do not intend to use up all the time available but I want to address a couple of issues that have been well ventilated but are worth reflecting on again. The measures in this Bill are, in the words of the Labour justice spokesperson, Deputy Kelly, "cruel". We all deal day in and day out with applications from family members of people who are here working in our health service, in our financial services system and across the economy who want and require their families here. If we are to seriously consider how we best integrate the new Irish then we unite them with their families and loved ones and we make this a welcoming and tolerant place for them. What is proposed in the legislation before us is far from that. I have received correspondence about the Bill, as lots of other Members have. I received some from a group in my area I work closely with. They are based in Dundalk and represent the interests of the LGBT+ community in the north east. They are concerned about the legislation and the requirements that will be placed on international protection applicants who are members of the LGBT+ community. Some LGBT+ applicants will find it difficult to make some of the declarations they will be required to make and may find it difficult to speak freely to people in authority because of their experiences in their home countries, which are not as tolerant as Ireland and do not have as progressive a legislative and social framework in terms of the LGBT+ community. These issues have been raised with me and we need to be very conscious of them. There are people fleeing persecution from countries around the world under threat of the death penalty and who have suffered all kinds of terrible experiences because of who they are. They come here because we are a welcoming and tolerant place for members of the LGBT+ community and we have shown that in our society. The Minister and Minister of State will be aware that two years ago this week the previous Government signed a contract to use all of the D Hotel in Drogheda to provide accommodation to international protection applicants. I wrote to both of them recently and raised this by way of parliamentary question to get their assessment of whether this contract will be renewed on expiry. It is due to expire this week, this month. About the time that contract was signed I worked very hard under extreme pressure with other colleagues in my community to ensure this decision and the response to it was managed effectively. It was managed well in our community in the way I would expect and the response was precisely what I would expect from the people of the great small city I am from, which I am proud to represent. We are a town that is synonymous with solidarity and we have shown that time and again. At this time two years ago when other parts of the country were frankly disgracing themselves, our flag and the essence of Irishness, the people I represent did not. We chose not because that is not who we are. We are people who show solidarity and people who show leadership. The decision taken two years ago removed more than half of Drogheda’s hotel bed stock at the stroke of a pen. It removed the largest full service hotel from the tourism landscape. An economic assessment done at the time suggested the cumulative loss to the local economy was about €22 million annually. This is not on those who need accommodation when they come here to have their applications assessed, who are coming here seeking safety and the shelter which is their entitlement. This is about the loss of a key piece of very critical local economic infrastructure. This or indeed any other hotel in the country is not an appropriate place for children or families and this place has been no exception. On countless occasions over the last two years, including working with Drogheda 4 All - a welcome group I helped support and establish some time ago to express solidarity and to work with new arrivals to our community - I have represented people and families who have been treated very badly in this place. I have made the reports and they are on record. I have engaged with officials. There is a lengthy list of issues with this place. As I said, the contract expires this month. This hotel has a track record. It is inappropriate. From the point of view of the needs of the local economy, the contract must not be renewed. It is as simple as that. The Government's promise at the time that this would be a two-year contract must be honoured. The commitment made by the owners that this would be a two-year contract and that the funds generated by the company would be reinvested in the hotel must also be honoured. The hotel must be returned to productive economic use locally. We need the State-run and State-supported expert services that we should have an entitlement to expect in this rich republic to support people who are seeking international protection who are, by definition, the most vulnerable in our society. We need that now. There is very little evidence of that happening at scale. When the Minister and Minister of State make their concluding addresses, it would be very much appreciated if they would place on the record their view in respect of the D Hotel. I corresponded with both on the matter. This is an issue of concern to the community I represent. I know the Minister and Minister of State are aware of that. Their guidance at this point, as the contract is about to expire, would be appreciated.

Sentiment score: 0.16