Without a doubt, the system we have had to date has not been fit for purpose and there have been several problems outlined here on that. The delays in the system have not been fair to anybody, particularly genuine and successful applicants. We need to be able to deal much more quickly with people who are fleeing war, persecution or famine. We need to be able to help them. If the faster processing times that have been set out happen, I will welcome the 12 weeks and the further 12 weeks on the second appeal. That will benefit successful applicants. Unsuccessful applicants, obviously, will have to leave. The current system is way too slow and there are examples of people waiting years within the system. The family reunification implications in the Bill are cruel and excessive, particularly in immediate families. We have to recognise that people - mothers and fathers - are separated from their children. I appeal to the Minister to go back on that. I am not too sure where the ask came from to put in that three-year clause. We have to be fair about this. We have people who may be working here in Ireland who are separated from their children and their partners, wives, husbands or whatever else. That is a cruel system. Imagine any of us being exposed to that. That is not fair and I appeal to the Minister to change it and to make it fairer, particularly for immediate families. That is the big point I wish to make here today. On return and departure, I want a fair, efficient and rules-based system. If something is not rules-based, it does not work. I do not have a problem with the rules being implemented once they are done in a fair and proper manner. The return and departure of unsuccessful applicants is not verified. At the Committee of Public Accounts two years ago, I asked the Secretary General of the Department what happened when somebody fails all the appeals processes, including through the courts. I was told that they send a letter to the last known address. How do you verify what is going to happen there? These people are living in rental accommodation much of the time, so much of it is temporary by nature. They may have moved on. There needs to be verification where somebody fails. Where somebody is successful, we have to make sure we look after them and they are treated properly, but where somebody fails the system and the appeals, we have to be able to verify. We can verify that less than half of those who have failed over the past three years have left the State. That is not a system that is working or is fit for purpose. You cannot look after the genuine cases if you are going to have a system that works like that. The resources are not there to cater for them and they are not being targeted for the help or supports they need. I do not have a problem with the approach being taken in respect of those convicted of serious crime. If we are being honest, we must accept that the right to stay can be terminated for people who are convicted of serious crime. We have to be careful when it comes to the issue of unaccompanied minors because children who are coming from dangerous countries, after fleeing a dangerous situation, must be cared for. However, my understanding is that many of these children are being brought to the front door of Tusla and being left there to be looked after. Tusla has to try to arrange bed and breakfast for them and to supervise these arrangements. Let us think about this for a minute and try to work it out. Unless there has been a change recently, this is what is happening and it is not acceptable. We must have a better way of dealing with these cases. If an unaccompanied child or minor arrives from a safe country, the safe country needs to be contacted to say, "We have a child from your country here" and they need to be safely returned into the hands of safe authorities. If they are from a country where there is any risk of war, persecution, famine, harm or exploitation coming to that child, they should not be returned. Let me be clear about that. On the issue of the IPAS centres, the Day report has been gathering dust for a good few years. We know it recommended that large centres be owned, run and controlled by the State. That has not happened. There is money being made and some people have got very wealthy off the back of this. Being honest, there is rampant profiteering and all sorts of chancers who have made huge money off the back of it and have got very well off in a short period. We need to move to those facilities recommended in the Day report. As far as I know, the only one we have made progress with is the Citywest centre and I welcome that. We have to recognise that England, Scotland and Wales - three foreign countries - are not in the European Union but we have a common travel area with them. They are outside the EU, so this EU agreement means nothing. As the previous speaker said, if there is an extremely right-wing government in England, which is highly possible in the form of Mr. Farage and his pals, we could wind up in a very difficult situation here. We need to reach binding agreements with Britain as regards what happens. It is accepted that the vast majority come over the artificial border on this island; that is a fact we cannot ignore. It is a difficult one to deal with but it has to be dealt with by the Department of foreign affairs while there is a friendly or reasonable enough government in Britain, even if it may be criticised in other ways. We need to be doing it while the Labour Party Government is in place because, my God, if Reform UK is elected into government there, it will change it. We need to help people who are successful applicants and those who have a reasonable case to put forward. Those who cannot obviously cannot stay. We need to help people to integrate with education, training and work. We need a fair, efficient and rules-based system. I appeal to the Minister to revisit the family reunification piece. That is a cruel proposal, and it needs to be revised.

Sentiment score: 0.10