149. Deputy Gary Gannon asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the total number of people who were granted permission to enter the State under the family reunification scheme, where the sponsor held refugee or subsidiary protection status, in 2025. [6121/26]
Sentiment score: 0.23
I ask the Minister to present to us the total number of people granted permission to enter the State under the family reunification scheme, where the sponsor held refugee or subsidiary protection status in 2025.
Sentiment score: 0.32
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I am very familiar with the differences between the three schemes, which is why I very specifically framed my question in the context of the family reunification scheme under the refugee scheme. I am glad the Minister gave me an exact figure of 669 because I found it quite eye-opening when he was doing an interview with "RTÉ News: Six One" a couple of weeks ago when this scheme was announced. He was asked the exact same question and his answer, to give a definition, was that it was approximately 1,000. There is a big difference between approximately 1,000 and 669.
Sentiment score: 0.09
In fact, it is almost 50% of a difference. I will go into the details of why family reunification is catered for under the Geneva Convention because it is very different. I could understand the logic if the Minister tells me that somebody comes here on a work visa and would need to be able to demonstrate. I can see that argument. I may not agree with it in its entirety but refugees have already gone through the system. They have proven their capacity to be eligible for refugee status and to have a family member here gives them the capacity to integrate, find work and be able to support. The three schemes are very different. They need to be seen that way.
Sentiment score: -0.01
Again, I am very specifically referring to the refugee family reunification scheme. We have a high bar in this country already to achieve refugee status. In order to achieve that, the person needs to demonstrate that they fled war, persecution or that their family is from a place where loss of life would have been a possibility or a direct threat to life. It is actually only 669 people and it is immediate spouse, your wife, your husband, your child or, in the case of a child that has come here, it is just their parent. There is already an 18-month wait for the family reunification scheme. If a child comes here unaccompanied at the age of 15 or 16, they would have to wait three years, so they have already timed out of the system. I do not doubt that the Minister has a difficult job but for this particular policy change, I do not think it is reflective of a fair or just system. There is still time to change; I understand the Minister is bringing through amendments to the International Protection Bill. I would ask him that maybe we should just reflect on this particular scheme, taking all the others out and dealing with them individually. This one actually aids integration and helps the person who has already proven their status beyond a very high bar.
Sentiment score: -0.01
I know what the refugee scheme is for.
Sentiment score: 0.00
Absolutely, to that particular scheme.
Sentiment score: 0.00
158. Deputy Gary Gannon asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the reason funding for the drug-related intimidation liaison role at the western area support project will not be renewed; and the specific alternative supports that will be in its place to ensure victims and families facing organised crime drug-related intimidation will continue to receive equivalent specialist assistance without interruption. [6122/26]
Sentiment score: 0.08
I ask the Minister the reason that funding for the drug-related intimidation liaison role at the Whitechurch addiction service was not renewed this year; and the specific alternative supports that will be in its place to ensure victims and families facing organised crime and drug-related intimidation will continue to receive equivalent specialist assistance without interruption.
Sentiment score: -0.64
That is probably part of the issue. I have raised drug-related intimidation with the Minister on numerous occasions. I am not sure, in terms of this particular project, if it availed of the community safety fund. I suspect it did, which is why that is not being renewed, given the requirement for a project to be something new that has not been funded previously. Therefore, it would not be eligible. I am also very conscious of drug-related intimidation being seen as something that is a scourge on communities the length and breadth of Ireland, but tackling it is not particularly well funded. I spoke to the Minister today at the committee about the fact that the drug-related intimidation and violence engagement, DRIVE, scheme was basically funded to €280,000 a year across the Twenty-six Counties. That equates to less than €20,000 per county. I am also conscious of the €4.4 million from the proceeds of crime fund. Of the 42 projects under that fund this year, only five were in any way related to drug-related intimidation, equating to approximately €473. Essentially, for drug-related intimidation this year alone, the Minister's Department and the Department of Health have allocated less than €700,000. I do not doubt for a second that the Minister recognises drug-related intimidation as something to be confronted, but what I do doubt is the capacity of this minuscule funding to deliver in terms of achieving that aim. I would like to work with him. If we work collaboratively, we can get more things done in this area.
Sentiment score: -0.19