We are talking in a bit of a vacuum here because any amendments the Minister has spoken about bringing forward, either in the media or here, have not actually been brought forward. As the previous speaker indicated, we should discuss any amendments in full on Committee Stage. I also ask that the Minister not guillotine the Bill. As he stated, it is such an important and comprehensive Bill. On foot of that, it should not be guillotined in any shape or form. There are a lot of concerns about the Bill because so many areas require scrutiny. The detention of unaccompanied children is a major issue. The creation of a disproportionate and overarching power for the Minister is something I will speak about in a moment. The information that will be provided to an applicant as part of this process and what it is in totality does not seem clear. There are issues around age assessments. Safeguarding is a huge area. There is also the issue of vulnerability assessment in the context of the fact that there will only be preliminary analysis done rather than an ongoing process, particularly as some things not be caught or discovered in the initial process. There are issues in relation to the independence of the appeals body. The Government is very unclear about the scope of the chief inspectorate and whether oral appeals will be allowed. There are also issues with the powers the Minister will be granted. There seems to be a pattern within the Department regarding a lot of the legislation and work it is bringing through. Much of this is not fully finished. I appreciate that there are amendments and legislation that need to be brought in, but there is so much that is not fundamentally not tied down in this Bill. We just do not know whether the provisions relating to many areas are going to be legally sound. I do not know if the Minister knows they will be legally sound. I am genuine in saying that. I admit that this is a very tricky area, but there is a time conditionality involved. While we are trying to work with the Minister, it is genuinely difficult to do so when we are shooting in the dark, which is what we are doing here. There are a number of omissions when it comes to the Bill. Legal counselling is not mentioned or defined. My colleague Deputy Ahern will be speaking on this matter. He and I are sharing time. The Minister has made serious statements on the issue of family unification and the three-year rule. We know this is coming but we do not know what will be involved. We need more information on that. The conditions around receptions and how they will be managed need to be dealt with. Issues relating to a designated authority are not included. Information on age assessments, and how they will be handled and regulated, and how the representative role will be regulated has not been published. The Bill is very broad when it comes to the powers being given to the Minister. These powers are fairly overarching. The Bill deals with the way the Minister can decide as to what information can be given to an applicant, if other organisations or NGOs can give out information, if applicants can appeal directly, if the chief inspector can be removed in the interests of the Government and the funding of the inspectorate. When we spoke at the committee, the issue relating to the chief inspector gave rise to a range of issues regarding the independence of the inspectorate from the Government. The Bill does not define what is meant by legal counselling. We had a lot of discussion on this at the committee and about who will provide it. Huge numbers of members of the legal profession are discussing this matter. It is something which really needs to be nailed down. Fewer than five months remain before the pact is due to be implemented. What is proposed creates serious uncertainty about applicants’ entitlements to legal advice at all stages of the process. I am very concerned that this is an area in respect of which there will be a huge level of kick-back and a large number of test cases. Dare I say, many people in the Minister’s former profession will be licking their lips and seeing dollar signs. I might as well say it to the Minister inside here - at least I have the guts to say it to him - they are all licking their lips asking if this will be a big payday and if the Minister is the Manchurian candidate for the legal professional in the Department of justice. I say that as a joke but there is serious concern as to whether he will get this through and it will be sound, and that there will not be a whole range of test cases where so much will be tied up. That will be a big problem for the Minister and he needs to get it right. At this point the jury is out on it. There is a lack of clarity on this and a big question over whether counselling can be provided by the legal profession under existing professional and ethical rules, and whether IP applicants will be denied customised individual advice as they are entitled to rather than just generic stuff. It is a fairly hefty concern. I am sure the Minister has read recommendations 82 to 85 from our pre-legislative scrutiny. If I were him, I would take some advice regarding the explicit provision on guaranteed access to free legal assistance. The issue in relation to legal counselling tied us up in knots. We really need to see where the Minister plans on going on that. Regarding gaps in age assessment, the Bill lacks clarity on who will do this work and what experience and qualifications they will have. This really needs to be dealt with. There is no detail on what constitutes a suitable medical means of assessing age. When it comes to the issue of children, this is absolutely essential. This is a serious gap in age assessment safeguards. There are also concerns over the independent monitoring mechanism, which is obviously essential for the protection of the rights of everyone in the system. Serious concerns remain about the effectiveness of the independent monitoring system as set out in the EU's fundamental rights agency. The chief inspector's powers appear mostly regulatory rather than investigative with unclear authority to initiate investigations of many potential breaches, whatever they may be, including assault, sexual assault and various other breaches. In relation to a number of other areas, including the detention and restriction of movement, proper procedures must apply with procedural safeguards. We cannot have a situation where it is de facto detention. There must absolutely be a prohibition on the detention of children, which is essential. The detention of adults should only be a measure of last resort. The word "proportionate" needs to come into play here. It is not very clear how that will be achieved. Moving on to the issue of family reunification, to be straight about it, not alone do we feel this is unfair and ill judged, it is downright cruel because it is not three years. Effectively, when everything is added up, it is five years. It is disproportionate and unfair, particularly when it comes to genuine cases. Of all the countries that should know what we are dealing with here, we should know what we are talking about. It is not appropriate that the Minister is pursuing this without the definition of how he is going to do it. As far as the Labour Party is concerned, instigating a three-year waiting period is unacceptable and cruel. It creates a different message from what we believe this country should be putting out in relation to how we deal sensitively with these issues. When we discussed this topic previously, I said that the issue of where international applicants are refused asylum in other EU countries needs to be looked at as regards how that can be utilised in this country. The Minister has not addressed that, but I expect he will do so in the future because I believe it is a genuine issue and something that could be quite helpful in reality. Furthermore, how we use language in this area is very important. I am very concerned that the language used, not alone by those in government, in Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and, dare I say it, some Independents, but also by Sinn Féin at times, where they are all trying to ride both horses, is completely hypocritical, unacceptable and at times actually publicly dangerous. It needs to stop. As far as I am concerned, the Minister can do better. I believe in a rules-based system. I also believe that if people fail those rules, they cannot stay in this country. I have no issue with deportation or any of that. However, I do have an issue with balance. In tandem with what the Minister is doing and in tandem with the obvious need to introduce a Bill of some scale like this, there also needs to be a public awareness campaign on the positivity of necessary inward migration. That does not happen. What happens is that the Minister for justice, the Tánaiste, the Taoiseach, Sinn Féin Members, certain Independent Members who are in government and others stand up and say, "Oh yeah, we have workers and they should be respected." They then spend the rest of the time going on about the issues, which at times are frightening and very upsetting for many people who come into this country. For the first time in my career, I have had migrants who are working in this country come to my office saying they are afraid. I recently heard the story of a migrant, not in my constituency, who is working in care. When they were out one day, they got horrendous abuse from particular individuals in the area where they live. Later on, around Christmas time, while they were working through their work in care looking after elderly people, amazingly, one of the people who gave the abuse was in visiting a member of their family. Who was looking after the member of that family? It was the same person they gave the abuse to. Let us call a spade a spade here. We need all these workers and we need more because, without them, this country would stop. We need them in care, tourism, hospitality, agriculture and, dare I say it, in very high-end jobs as well. We are failing to send that message. We need proportionality as regards what we are doing in this country when it comes to migration. I say this clearly to the Minister and everybody else in government and in Sinn Féin: if they do not do it, we will do it. Somebody has to present a positive message on inward migration. Those in government are responsible but they are bloody well not doing it. In fact, at times they are scaring people. To mix up the asylum process with inward migration is a disgrace. The numbers are tiny by comparison with what we need to keep our country progressing economically and socially.

Sentiment score: -0.00

Excuse me, I am not making any conflation. I am actually talking about lived experience. Is the Deputy calling me a liar?

Sentiment score: -0.14

I am representing the issue.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I did not start this.

Sentiment score: 0.00

We will get through the meat of the Bill on Committee Stage because so much is missing. The facts are that the Government is deliberately putting out spurious messages on migration and what is going on here is a bloody disgrace. The people who have come into this country from other countries and who work here are welcome. That is the message the Government should be sending out, rather than leaving us to do it.

Sentiment score: -0.16

Tell your colleagues.

Sentiment score: 0.00