This is a subject on which I have been back and forth. I would say I am generally in favour of immigration. It has done this country almost nothing but good. When I think of the Ireland in which I grew up in the 1990s, it was homogenous and, by extension, quite restricted. There were no foreigners to speak of in Ireland, certainly in the early 1990s, and the homogeneity of our society meant we did not have the experience of multiculturalism and all the positive things that come with it. I say that in relation to immigration because migration had not even come onto the horizon at that stage. Some people talk about migration and immigration as if they are the same thing but it is really important to distinguish between the two. When I talk about immigration, I am referring to people who come here under a work permit system to take up positions, not to avail in any way of supports from the State but 100% to contribute to it. As has been noted in this House on a number of occasions, we need those people. They are keeping our hospitals and restaurants open, staffing our hotels and contributing at every level in their communities. As a country that is in some ways a victim of its own success in that we have full employment, we need people from other countries to come here to do jobs, work with us and contribute to our economy. Of course, they are also paying taxes, spending their income here and contributing at all kinds of economic levels, as well as solving employment problems for employers and companies all over the country. Immigration has been an unqualified success for Ireland. In fact, the problem with immigration is the slowness in granting work permits and in responding to the needs of particular sectors for skilled workers in a specific area. That is another subject and another day's work altogether. With migration, on the other hand, we are dealing with a couple of issues. First, we have our international obligations. I have always supported what we do as part of the international community to recognise that just as our citizens in the past went to other countries seeking shelter, support and asylum during tough times here, we must play our part in welcoming people from other countries to Ireland, giving them shelter and succour and allowing them to live the lives we would like everybody in the world to be able to live. I also recognise that we cannot accept everybody from elsewhere into this country. There is a balancing act that must be done all the time. In this regard, one of the issues I have found myself discussing, particularly with Danish colleagues in the context of their Presidency of the European Council, is what the Danish Government has done in regard to migration specifically. Interestingly, Denmark has a social democratic Government and it is probably at variance with many of the social democrats in this Chamber on this issue. When I first heard what the Danish Social Democrats Government was doing, I had my reservations about it. However, I have had a lot of conversations with Social Democrats members of the Folketing who have explained why they have pursued what I would say is a fairly hard-line policy on migration. We often use the term "social cohesion" perhaps a little loosely but they recognised the problem that there was a growing far-right movement within Denmark. There are still problems, of course, which is something every country is dealing with. Fortunately, Ireland does not have any real mandate for far-right people or people expressing that ideology. The Danish Social Democrats were concerned about that ideology getting a grip and, so, what they did was try to get out ahead of it. That is how they would explain it. They sought to neutralise the arguments being made by far-right politicians to ensure they could not use migration as a tool to get themselves into elected office and into positions of power and influence where they could continue to propagate what is, in essence, a racist ideology. I understand why they did that and I have been back and forth on the question of whether we should do something similar from the point of view of acknowledging that we, too, have certain people, albeit a minority and without a mandate, expressing those views within our polity, on social media and in other media. However, I also think there is a danger that if we just do their job for them, then there is no point in keeping them out. Therefore, I come back to the point that we must constantly work to balance up these issues. It remains a topic I grapple with because in my constituency of Dún Laoghaire, the experience we have had with migration has been universally positive. Of the IPAS centres within the constituency, the one on Eblana Avenue in Dún Laoghaire town is substandard. It is solely occupied by single men, who have not received the respect or treatment from IPAS that they deserve and who are living in a substandard building. Notwithstanding that, they continue to contribute to the community in Dún Laoghaire. The problems many local people foresaw with their arrival simply have not materialised. In Blackrock, where there are two IPAS centres, albeit right next to each other, the families living there have contributed so much to the community. They are part of the Tidy Towns organisations and have joined local clubs. They are contributing in so many ways, including working in local businesses. A larger centre has opened on Merrion Road in the Minister's constituency, although I would submit it is more directly connected to mine. In terms of residential areas, Booterstown is probably closer to me. Again, at that centre, Merrion House, none of the problems foreseen by some people locally have materialised. Just over 100 people are living there, which is a small number really. The problems I foresaw when that development came to my attention were problems with education, healthcare and, as raised by others, in terms of what the people living there would do all day. I will come back to that third point momentarily. Schools in the area are delighted to see them. In fact, there has been an unqualified welcome for them from the principals of primary and secondary schools in the area. They add diversity to their classes, bulk up their numbers and make a contribution. The schools are delighted to have them. Regarding healthcare, I have raised this issue a number of times with the Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and I know there is an international protection medical service serving that centre. However, there is a real problem with access to GPs in south Dublin. The residents get medical cards, which is all well and good, but GP practices in Dún Laoghaire will not take medical card patients because they simply do not have the capacity. That is a problem but the dedicated health service solves it to a certain extent. On the question of what the residents would do all day, it simply is not an issue. We should remember these are people coming from places where they cannot live their lives - war-torn places and places where they are discriminated against because of who they are, whether on the basis of their sexual orientation, ethnicity or whatever it might be. They come here looking to make a new life and to contribute in whatever way they can. Let us welcome them in to do that. In fact, the issue in this regard is that we do not let them work early enough. They should not have to wait six months before they can work. Let us allow them to contribute now because that is what they want to do. None of them wants to be sitting in an IPAS centre thumb twiddling and trying to find something to occupy the time every day. What a waste of human capital that is at a time when we need them to contribute, which is what they want to do. Let us solve that problem. The Bill does nothing, for example, to address the right of international protection applicants to work here. I hope this is something the Minister will consider changing by way of amendments at a later Stage. It would be easy to make changes to employment legislation under the guise of this Bill to allow people who are here for whatever length of time, and before a determination has been made on their application, to work. Perhaps the most important action we can take for international protection applicants here is to invest in the International Protection Office to ensure their applications are processed in a timely way. The most unfair thing is when people come here and wait years for a determination and, even worse, then get a determination that goes against them. They have built a life here. They may have met a partner here and started a family and now they are being told they have to leave, when this country might be all their children know. That is unreasonable. I welcome the elements of the Bill that seek to change that and speed up the process. I also welcome the EU migration pact because it equips us with the tools we need to speed up that process. Although it might be controversial in some respects, it is really important, if it is going to deliver for people, that we use it. In that regard, I do not have a problem with the changes proposed to the time period within which people are allowed to apply for citizenship or naturalisation. The notion you would come here under a work permit to work in this country as part of an immigration scheme and you have to wait five years to apply, whereas if you come here under international protection you have to wait three, is not right. It is not fair to disadvantage people who have come here under an immigration scheme as opposed to those who have an international protection status, so let us even that out. If it is to be five years I do not really have a problem with that. I have a problem with the family reunification aspect. It is miserly and unfair. I do not think it is going to achieve very much in terms of changing the environment or in any way dissuading people from coming here. When people leave or flee their home country seeking international protection they are not putting together an Excel spreadsheet of the terms, benefits and opportunities in the countries they might end up in. They go to wherever they can to avoid the persecution they were suffering. I doubt there are people coming here thinking the family reunification benefits in Ireland are fantastic and for that reason they will go there. It does not work that way. As such, I do not really see the need for us to tell those people they are going to have to wait three years. Where before they had to apply within 12 months, now they have to wait over three years. I do not appreciate that, do not think it is necessary and do not think it should be in the Bill. I ask the Minister to consider that on Committee Stage. I also have a concern about the legal counsellors provision and the provision of legal counsel. "Legal counsellors" is not a term I understand. I understand what it means in plain English, but I do not understand whether it means qualified lawyers in Ireland. One of the criticisms I have of the International Protection Office and the way it administered the legal scheme for people coming here was it did not properly engage barristers or solicitors. The office aimed at junior members of the profession, especially barristers as they are self-employed and they had the capacity to do this work, and it took advantage of them in no uncertain terms. The office required them to train for free and often for more than a day at a time. If they did not do a report within a certain period they had to retrain despite their being highly qualified individuals. They were taken advantage of by the IPO and it is a shame on the office that it did that. Is this a further step down this road? Is this again what we are doing? We are trying to circumvent the fact we have a coterie of highly qualified, highly capable professional people who can provide a service. Is it the case the State simply does not want to pay for it or wants to avoid paying for it? It should not try to avoid this. In the same way we would provide proper legal representation for people before a court in family matters under legal aid schemes - or for people accused of a crime, for that matter - we should be looking after people who come here to bring international protection applications with proper legal representation. I do not know what legal counsellors are. I do not know if they are lawyers and I do not know if they will be up to the pace on that. I have heard quite a lot of rhetoric here and do not agree with it all. I suspect I am more sympathetic to some of it than many of my Government colleagues but the reality is that we have obligations and we need to make good on those obligations. We do good things but we also do things that are substandard. Rather than trying to implement things that will not make a difference but will make life harder for international protection applicants, we should be looking at this Bill as an opportunity to streamline a system that delivers for us as a country and, God forgive me, as an economy, but also for the people who are coming here seeking and deserving our protection.

Sentiment score: 0.07