Deputy Clare Daly was in possession.
International Protection Bill 2015 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed)
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I have one minute left.
She is sharing time with Deputies Mick Wallace, Paul Murphy, Shane Ross, Richard Boyd Barrett, Finian McGrath and Maureen O'Sullivan.
The point I made before the debate was suspended was that we cannot forget our complicity in creating the conditions that make people seek asylum in the first place, a complicity that makes this Bill and how it is being handled even more unforgivable. There are currently 60 million people all over the world who are displaced - that is one in every 122 people worldwide. Thanks to what Dr. Tom Clonan has described as the virtual forward air base of the US military that lies in Shannon Airport, Ireland has had a significant part to play in that displacement. That is just a fact. We have done nothing about it. We facilitate war and the movement of weapons to places like Saudi Arabia. We play a central role in all of this, and then turn round to the people who are the victims of it and offer them this appalling travesty of a Bill.
The Government says that this is a short-term solution which will solve people's accommodation needs as they seek an application for protection in this country. I understood, from listening to the Minister for State, that direct provision would be abolished, given how poorly it had functioned over the years. Fast-tracking the process will not necessarily solve all of the problems. It will obviously help, but it is interesting that various NGOs have pointed out that there are not sufficient safeguards in the Bill to prevent people being fast-tracked through the system and out of the country again, with insufficient scrutiny of whether they actually need protection. That hardly seems like a just or reasonable solution.
Another problem is the fact that the direct provision system remains a largely private system, with only seven out of the 34 direct provision centres being run by the State. The others are run by private companies. The Ombudsman and the Ombudsman for Children have no oversight role and, despite the working group's recommendation that they should be given one under this Bill, it was another suggestion that was ignored. People live in caravans, prefabs and hotel rooms, sometimes four or five people to a room. They are not permitted to cook their own food and have almost no control over their own lives. Leaving in place the system as it is currently constituted is disappointing.
Ireland is probably unique in that it totally strips asylum seekers of their independence and forces them to be directly provided for by the State, to the tune of €19 per adult per week, with a caravan in Mosney sometimes being thrown in. It is unfortunate that the Bill does not go a lot further. The fact that NGOs are so disappointed with it should surely raise concerns for the Government.
The Minister said people are looking for safe asylum, and I agree with her that they are. We must keep highlighting the fact that there is a reason 33 million people are displaced today because of war. It is unfortunate that we pretend we are not facilitating it, but we are complicit by allowing Shannon Airport to be used as a US military airbase. The Minister can shake her head all she likes, but if we allow international law to be broken on a regular basis by military planes coming through Shannon carrying arms and munitions, which is against international law, and to refuse to inspect them, we are complicit in the war effort.
Some 2.5 million US troops have passed through Shannon since 2001. What have they been doing? Almost 2 million innocent civilians have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. We have played a large part in that. It was nauseating to listen to the Minister for Health yesterday feign concern about Deputies breaking the law when he is not remotely worried about international laws being broken almost daily in Shannon by US military planes bringing munitions and arms through the airport. Why is he not concerned about that? Why is he not concerned about the health of the people in the Middle East and the 2 million innocent civilians who have been killed? I do not understand him.
It was truly shameful to see Deputies Wallace and Daly jailed yesterday for their part in highlighting the disgusting role the Irish Government has played and continues to play in facilitating warmongering and the killing of ordinary people in the Middle East through the use of Shannon Airport. For most people, that contrasts very greatly with the inaction we are likely to see in terms of fairly openly corrupt politicians.
The Anti-Austerity Alliance opposes the International Protection Bill, the manner in which it has been brought forward and the Government's attempt to railroad it through without proper debate and discussion. The Bill comes against the backdrop of the humanitarian crisis we are witnessing in Syria and across North Africa, where people who are fleeing war are now being met with tighter EU border controls, the construction of barriers, barbed wire and police brutality. People can see the horrific scenes on their televisions screens.
The Irish Government has committed to welcoming 4,000 people, but only 100 have been offered assistance so far and it is planned to resettle only 30. That is completely unacceptable. Right wing and racist forces, most graphically demonstrated by the comments of Donald Trump in America, cannot and must not be allowed to use horrific crimes, such as the Paris terrorist attacks, to make scapegoats of the refugees who are fleeing the same reactionary right-wing forces like ISIS which carried out the attacks.
The right of people to seek asylum for themselves and their families is a fundamental right which must be defended. The need for change in Ireland's asylum process is something that this and previous Governments have discussed for over a decade, yet this week the Minister is trying to drive through the Bill with very little debate and against the wishes of groups like the Irish Refugee Council and the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, which have raised serious concerns about the Bill.
The Minister established a working group on the protection process, involving groups like the Irish Refugee Council, the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, Doras Luimní and others. The working group made 173 recommendations on how the asylum process could be improved in a range of different areas. However, what has been brought forward is an insult to the work of these groups. Very few of the working group's recommendations have been taken on board. In a press conference earlier this week, Fiona Finn, the chief executive of Nasc, the immigrant support centre, in a damning comment described the approach taken as the Minister cherry-picking a handful of the more conservative recommendations and ignoring any positive recommendations.
The creation of a single procedure for asylum claims is something for which different organisations have campaigned for many years. It is intended to speed up the asylum process, rather than the current system which can take years. However, without the other measures that those organisations recommended, such as an independent body to decide on these issues, proper training of people who will be the first point of contact for those seeking asylum and putting child welfare at the centre of the policy, it is fundamentally flawed. The single process without those measures will simply speed up the process, but in doing so will put people's lives in danger by potentially refusing them entry or returning them to countries where they are at risk.
This Bill will see the number of people being deported from this country rise. It will give gardaí more powers to arrest people to be deported. Part of the aim of the Bill seems to be about enforcing the country's borders in a more rigorous way and giving the authorities more powers to expel people quickly, rather than being about offering people the vital right to asylum.
This follows the unfortunate trend we are seeing throughout Europe. Decisions will now be made by the Minister who will have the power to decide who gets to stay.
The Bill does nothing to address direct provision, the degrading dehumanising horrific situation in which people can live for years in what are akin to open prison camps where people survive on €19 a week without the right to work. Direct provision needs to be ended, people need to be treated humanely and the right to asylum needs to be defended.
I welcome this debate, as we have all seen the huge international crisis with people fleeing their homes in Syria, Iraq, Libya and throughout the Middle East. To make matters worse, some western governments want to bomb more, kill more innocent people, destroy people's homes and completely destroy innocent lives with their aerial bombings, which ignore the reality on the ground. In this country we have our own cheerleaders, particularly in the Government, who want to make the situation worse.
I raise this in the context of the International Protection Bill, as we all need to support international protection of these refugees. Sitting on the fence should not be an option at a time of international crisis. We should not blame the refugees for the mass murders in Paris, whether they are in Beirut, Iraq or Syria. They are the ones risking their lives to get away from the conflicts and the slaughter. We all need to focus on the real issues and reach out and support these people at risk.
Our history of immigration and asylum is part of who we are, and it is a bit rich and a bit hypocritical to campaign for the illegal Irish in the United States and not do enough in our own country. The Ombudsman for Children, who deals with the welfare and rights of children, said the Bill could be enhanced to help accompanied and unaccompanied children. I strongly support this position.
Many groups have concerns about the Bill. Anti-Deportation Ireland is a national campaign for asylum seekers, and many of those involved are former asylum seekers and their supporters. It opposes the Bill on a number of grounds, not least because it believes the single application procedure being introduced in the Bill will lead to quicker and more frequent deportations from Ireland. Deportation can be a violent and inhumane process which separates families and has directly led to the death of at least one identifiable person, Mohamed Ali Sleyum, who was beaten by police in Tanzania immediately after being deported from Ireland in April 2014.
The Bill is deeply flawed. These flaws can be addressed on Committee Stage and I am highlighting these issues because I would appreciate if the Minister examined them. We need to deal with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission's recommendations on the best interests of the child, unaccompanied minors, family reunification, the assessment of credibility and detention. These are important issues we need to examine in the legislation. I urge the Minister to be more proactive and support the people on the ground.
The Government should be utterly ashamed of itself for the Bill and for bringing it to the Dáil on international human rights day. The Labour Party should be especially ashamed of itself, as its members parade around as champions of equality but support a Bill which is regressive, cruel and draconian with regard to some of the most vulnerable people in the world.
It is deeply ironic that a Bill such as this could be put forward when we have a disaster in Syria which has forced half the country's population to flee in desperate circumstances. They have been herded into camps surrounded by barbed wire in Greece and elsewhere, they have drowned in the Mediterranean and they are desperately in need of assistance and refuge. What we should have is a Bill which offers a compassionate, generous and independent system of asylum which does away with the utter scandal of direct provision and gives rights to asylum seekers, particularly to their children, prioritises them, gives them the support they need and gives them the right to work and participate in society. All these things which should be in the Bill, especially at this time, are not in the Bill. Instead what we have is a Bill which is about fast-tracking cruel deportations and making them easier to carry out, with none of the safeguards necessary to vindicate the rights of some of the most desperate and vulnerable people in the world. It is utterly shameful.
Mohamed Ali Sleyum was mentioned earlier. He is an example of what needed to be addressed in the Bill. He was a Tanzanian man who was deported from this country in April 2014, and within hours of going back to Tanzania he was beaten and a few hours later he was dead, because we got it wrong. We deported somebody who should not have been deported. Now we have a Bill which makes the kind of tragic mistake more and not less likely. The Bill removes the right to a proper appeals process and the necessary supports, essentially refuses to recognise the reality of people arriving here, and instead facilitates a fast-track deportation process and more dawn raids by gardaí bursting into people's houses without warrants from a court to pack them off on planes and, potentially in many cases, put them back to the horror they tried to escape in the first place.
It is shameful and it is a damning indictment that the Irish Refugee Council, Nasc, Doras Luimní, the Children's Rights Alliance and Anti-Deportation Ireland, and the list goes on, have either opposed and condemned the Bill outright or have said it is way short of what it should be and needs to be very substantially amended. Instead this is what we get.
All of the key issues of injustice in the scandal of direct provision that were identified by the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions, of which I am a member, and by working groups were all ignored and instead what we have is a process to fast-track deportation and deny proper justice to people.
I underline the point that all this is made even more shameful when the Government is again complicit in creating the conditions which lead to desperate people fleeing their countries by facilitating the US war machine at Shannon Airport, which has resulted in the barbaric wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and now another war in Syria. These have created the conditions that gave rise to organisations such as Daesh and have produced this unprecedented refugee crisis. We either create the conditions for people to be forced to flee their homes or we do nothing, at least, to speak up against the actions that lead to the crises in the first place, and then we have a cruel fortress which denies people the right to asylum and human dignity and the protection of their rights and the rights of their children and their families. The Government should be ashamed.
There is no doubt that the system in Ireland is in need of major reform because there have been so many problems, difficulties and delays in the past for those foreign nationals who have arrived here. It is an abuse of their human rights and we have been guilty of abuse of human rights, which makes a mockery of our position on the UN Human Rights Council. Regardless of the circumstances in which people arrive in Ireland, all should be treated with respect and dignity, but unfortunately this has not happened.
What is to be welcomed is this is a first step in delivering the undertaking to reduce the length of time asylum applicants spend in the direct provision system by establishing a single application procedure. I visited Spirasi, which is based on the North Circular Road. It works with the victims of torture. In 2014, it worked with 600 victims of torture from more than 75 different countries.
The group provided counselling, psychotherapy, medical support and legal support to those victims. Spirasi has welcomed the publication of the Bill and, in particular, the provision for a single application procedure, as do most of the concerned organisations. There is general agreement on that principle. Spirasi has made the point that if it is correctly resourced by the Government, the new system will speed up and improve the protection system for everybody concerned.
However, the group has concerns regarding how the position of vulnerable persons is dealt with in the legislation. The expectation was that the Bill would lay down some basis for the establishment of mechanisms to actively identify vulnerable groups early in the protection process. The key word here is "early". While the Bill does provide that "due regard" be accorded to vulnerability, that only applies where refugee status has been bestowed. Over the years, I have met large numbers of foreign national people in Dublin Central of all ages and nationalities. I am always struck by their sad stories of long waiting times, separation from loved ones, not being able to work or working illegally, with the difficulties that brings, as well as issues around education. We have a real opportunity here to get these things right. The provisions requiring that due regard be given to vulnerability should not be confined to sections 52 to 56, inclusive, but should be applied to the whole Bill. I support the call that care, consideration and monitoring be provided to vulnerable applicants throughout the whole asylum procedure. Many people within the asylum-seeking population are very marginalised and have made very difficult journeys to get to Ireland. They have paid a high cost economically, socially, psychologically and mentally. They are no different from the Irish people who left this country after the Famine and at other times since then.
It is alarming that the Bill is being rushed through the Houses. It might seem like a contradiction, given we have been seeking it for so long, that we are now taking a critical approach when it looks like the legislation will be passed into law. The point is that it is vital to get it right. When concerns are raised by those working directly with and supporting persons in the asylum process, those concerns should be listened to and acted upon. It will completely undermine those persons who engage in working groups if their discussions and recommendations are not part of the finished process. In this instance, it is their considered opinion that these proposals require more consideration and in-depth debate. That is reflected in the number of amendments that have been brought forward, including from the Government.
It is agreed that the Bill will reduce the length of time asylum seekers spend in the direct provision stream and help to ensure they are treated with respect and humanely. However, it also gives a lot of power to the Garda and the immigration service. For instance, the Bill provides that asylum seekers may be detained where they are considered a threat to national security. Unfortunately, what constitutes a threat to national security is very vague. This is the sort of thing the British Government has been hiding behind for years when it comes to engaging with the Justice for the Forgotten group and dealing with prisoner issues in Northern Ireland. We cannot just take the term "national security" and apply it willy-nilly. There is a need for greater discussion on the training needed for immigration officers and gardaí working with asylum seekers. It is vital that there be an independent appeals mechanism. There are concerns, too, in respect of unaccompanied minors. A number of youth groups and schools, including some in the north inner city, have been working with unaccompanied minors. Only for these youth projects and the active engagement of the schools, those minors would have been even more exploited than they have been.
The Minister said that the new system will identify at a much earlier stage those persons who are not entitled to remain in the State and who may be "safely returned" to their country of origin. We must be 100% sure in those cases that we do not expose vulnerable people to dangerous situations in their country of origin, whether the peril is to do with gender, sexuality, religion or ethnicity. There is always a danger in rushing to get legislation through that something will be missed. There is a danger in this case that amendments will not be given the consideration they merit, which will store up problems for the future.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Given the huge upsurge in the numbers seeking protection, few Bills have been more timely or more needed. However, last weekend, I received 752 e-mails asking that I press for the withdrawal of the legislation. I am completely baffled by this. I do not know who orchestrated the campaign or how they formed the view that refugees' interests would be better served by not passing this Bill. I wonder how many of them read the Bill or are aware that its purpose is to address the main concerns expressed by asylum seekers themselves.
We surely all agree that the painfully slow determination of status has been an outrage over the years. Nobody should be waiting up to seven years, or even more, for an outcome to an application for protection. The system simply had to be streamlined and made more efficient. The current lengthy process is no more likely to produce a better or fairer outcome for applicants than would a shorter process. I disagree with Deputy Boyd Barrett's claim that a shorter process is somehow a way of getting refugees out of the country. There is far more focus and a sense of urgency when there is a single process rather than a drawn out one. The endless waiting period applicants have had to endure must have been utterly demoralising. I disagree, too, with Deputy Boyd Barrett's argument that there is no proper appeals process. The safeguard of a completely independent appals system is included in the Bill.
I accept there may be disappointment that not all of the recommendations of the working group are provided for in the Bill. However, that was never the purpose of this legislation. Its function is to provide for a single application process that will bring our system into line with those in other countries. It is what people have been clamouring for in recent years. The legislation also introduces enhanced compliance with the UN Convention on Refugees and with EU directives. In fact, the Bill provides for 26 of the recommendations of the working group. Crucially, it addresses the major concerns of asylum seekers currently residing in reception centres. Addressing the length of time issue will make the other recommendations far less urgent. If people are moved more quickly through the system, it certainly will make it easier to address many of the other concerns, such as providing single rooms for individuals and making family-appropriate accommodation available.
The Minister has clearly noted that speeding up the process by introducing a single application system is a priority but there is more to come. This Bill addresses the first and most pressing issue and is one step in an ongoing effort. The refugee crisis is changing almost daily in terms of scale and the attendant dangers for those seeking asylum. There is no sign of any abatement in that crisis. Inevitably, Ireland and Europe's responses will be under constant review, but we must begin with the measures set out in this Bill. Such is the scale of the challenge, it is inevitable too that we must clarify and update our laws and procedures dealing with applications. We also need to tighten up and make our deportation procedures much more orderly and safe. In addition, we need to strengthen our border controls. We owe it to the genuine cases seeking our protection that we register them, know who they are and where they are, and give a speedy outcome to their applications. At the same time, where persons are found not to be in need of protection, we must have a system that safely, promptly and cost-effectively arranges for their deportation. It is ludicrous that until relatively recently, 10% of people in reception centres had already had their applications rejected and were the subject of deportation orders. That percentage does not take account of those who have been lost in the system but presumably remain in the country.
I welcome, in particular, Part 9 which provides for matters relating to programme refugees, the admission into the State of persons for resettlement and the possible invocation of the Council of Ministers under the temporary protection directive. We in Ireland have gone beyond our EU commitment requirements in agreeing to take 4,000 refugees for resettlement here. It seems to be little understood that when one takes family reunification commitments into account, we will probably accept some four times that number. The Minister might not be able to do so in this Bill but I ask her to consider implementing as soon as possible the recommendations on including elderly relatives, for example, in the family reunification provisions.
When people are fleeing conflict, elderly people are often too infirm to travel. When one sees the pictures of people travelling, it is easy to see how elderly relatives may have to be left behind. Mothers, fathers and grandmothers are left out of the definition and they should be included. The recommended period of a year within which one must make an application should be extended, particularly where people are escaping from war-torn areas.
There has also been criticism about the delay in starting resettlement, but when one is resettling people, it is far better to be ready for them. Given our current housing situation, it is in everybody's interest if we are really ready to accommodate migrants. They will inevitably go to reception centres for processing and familiarisation, but given that nearly all those chosen for resettlement here will already have an established case for protection, it is likely that they will be able to move quite quickly through the first phase in reception centres and then hopefully move on into houses. If they are to be integrated and not left homeless or hanging around in reception centres, it is better to be ready and to take our time and maybe receive them in the new year, rather than trying to get them out immediately from the camps or wherever they are at the moment.
There has also been criticism that we are not accepting enough refugees and that 4,000, growing to 16,000, is a mere drop in the ocean. It is a drop in the ocean and we probably could be more generous. Indeed, we probably will be more generous, and I hope we will be. When we see the pictures on our televisions of hapless Syrians packed into boats, of children's bodies being washed up on beaches and of pregnant women who have travelled for months through Africa arriving to a less than welcoming Europe, our natural inclination is to respond with compassion, to be generous and to say that maybe we should open our doors to all comers. I understand that, because it is my own instinctive reaction, but while we could probably be more generous, the sad truth is that even if we were to accept into Europe all of those currently seeking asylum - most doing so legitimately - who are based in reception and detention centres in Europe, in camps in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, within a very short time, they would be replaced by as many more. It is sometimes not grasped that this is not a finite problem that we can solve by saying we will settle 4,000, 40,000 or 400,000. There will, for the foreseeable future, be wave after wave of migrants escaping war who want and are seeking protection, shelter and a better way of life in Europe. Even if the Syrian war ended tomorrow, the instability in the Middle East created by war and devastated economies, the lack of any kind of rule of law in some north African countries, like Libya, and the unrest, wars and hunger of sub-Saharan Africa all combine to ensure a steady flow of humanity from south to north for years to come. It is not just Africa and Syria: we read in today's newspapers of 1,200 refugees being bussed from the Macedonian border to Athens. They were not coming from Syria but from places like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is an inexorable flow to Europe.
The world's population is to grow between now and 2050 by almost 2.5 billion and most of that population growth will come from sub-Saharan Africa, where we have some of the poorest people in the world and many war-torn countries. In Nigeria alone, the population will more than double, rising from 173 million to almost 400 million people, surpassing the population of the US and Indonesia and becoming the world's third most populous state, after India and China. That is just Nigeria; the trend is the same all over sub-Saharan Africa. If they are fleeing that region now, escaping poverty and hunger and seeking a better way of life in Europe, as the population grows and they become ever poorer and ever hungrier, they will come in ever-greater numbers. They will keep coming, seeking a better, safer way of life for themselves and their children for as long as the standard of living in Europe is better than theirs. Who could blame them? It is a perfectly natural thing to want to do. They do not have much but they do have mobile phones and access to the Internet and they know there is a better world than the one they live in, so they will come and they will take risks. They will continue to come until either their standard of living rises nearer to ours or ours falls to theirs, so that it is no longer attractive for them to come to Europe. That is the grim reality and we have to ask ourselves which option we want and what we will do to ensure that option is available. I am talking about doing something about poverty in Africa.
Squabbles over who takes how many refugees are very short-term problems compared with the future trend and what it means for Europe's stability. Ending conflicts and improving economies and governance in Africa are problems without easy solutions, but that is a debate we urgently need to have in Europe and beyond. We need to see what we are dealing with in the broader context of what is to come. Meanwhile, migration must be managed and regulated, minimising exposure to danger for refugees through taking hazardous journeys. This must take the shape of funding camps in the countries where they first arrive, outside the EU. It must involve establishing a regulated programme of resettlement into Europe and putting in place improved border controls, which allow for the managed and ordered registration and reception of the many genuine asylum seekers.
I also want to comment on the criticism I have heard of Ireland, and Europe generally, paying money to Turkey to fund its refugee programme. Approximately €3 billion in funding was agreed in Europe. Critics accuse Turkey of human rights abuses, curbing the media and so on. Maybe they are right and maybe they are not. Maybe they are partly right. However, we have a bit of a hard neck to criticise Turkey when it comes to the refugee issue. Turkey is not Ireland. It is a country at the crossroads of continents, cultures and religion, and it is struggling to find a way to build a secular democracy appropriate to its place and time. They may not be all we want them to be, but they never will be if we leave them to deal with all the refugees they have had to cope with in recent years. Last June, I spent a few days on the Turkish-Syrian border, visiting refugee camps. As far as I am concerned, the Turkish Government and people have been heroic in the generosity and compassion they have shown to the almost 3 million refugees they have received and who have fled over the borders in the last four years. There are over 1 million people in towns and villages, absorbed into villages and swamping villages in many cases, along the border. There are also over 1 million people in the camps. One could not fault the Turkish people and Government for the efforts they have made to make those camps as safe, comfortable and well provided for as possible. They have provided schools, health centres and training centres, all in as culturally appropriate a manner as could be arranged. When I was there in June, they had already spent over $6 billion and they were pleading for more help. The initial refugees who came over the border into Turkey only envisaged staying there a few months. They assumed the war would be over soon and that they would go back. As the war drags on, temporary camp conditions, no matter how good, are clearly not a long-term solution. Consequently, these people are beginning to leave the camps and come north into Europe if they can. If we are to avoid those hazardous journeys, the least we can do is to give financial support to the receiving countries to improve conditions for the asylum seekers who are going to be there as the war goes on much longer than was envisaged in the first few months.
I also welcome and support the measures to improve the policing of our borders, here and in Europe. The prime function of any state is to protect its borders and that function is growing in importance as the terrorist threat in Europe grows. Apart from terrorism, the only way to register and assess those genuinely needing protection is to know who they are and where they are. I also welcome the agreement requiring airlines to pass on passenger lists. I know this has been criticised heavily because people say this exchange of data is an invasion of their privacy, but I would be happy to exchange my privacy for my protection and security. Most people would agree with that and would recognise that unfortunately there is a price we have to pay for security in the new world dominated by the threat of terrorism. I congratulate the Minister on this Bill. I utterly support everything in it and look forward to the further measures that will come in time.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this legislation. I also welcome the Minister.
This is a serious issue, elements of which have reached crisis proportions right across the globe. It is having a major impact on the entire world at present. It raises serious questions about our own behaviour and activities in the context of how we deal with migrants and how the European Union does likewise.
We all have seen on television and heard on radio - some have seen in person - the large numbers of desperate people who are fleeing war, famine, poverty and inhuman conditions. They are trying to get away from circumstances where they cannot feed, clothe or education their children and are looking to what they see as the promised land, much of which is in Europe - western Europe in particular.
Of the countries that are affected at present, of course, Syria is top of the list, followed by Libya and Iraq. Then, as one moves down further into Africa, there are Mali and Eritrea. Migrants are coming in increasingly large numbers from north Africa and the Middle East. The extent of this flood of people is a new phenomenon. In many ways, it reflects the policies we have adopted over the years and the inability or unwillingness of wealthier countries to deal properly with the problems that are experienced in other parts of the world. It also reflects some of the policies that have been operated by certain countries. I refer to Iraq, Syria and Libya, and, indeed, western countries in the European Union as well as the United States, that have been involved in some of those. These policies have not improved the situation, rather they have led to it becoming worse. We must take stock of the situation and examine the problem that has led to this. We must also put in place measures to ensure that the situation cannot continue to obtain because if it does so, we simply will be unable to cope with it such is the deluge of immigration.
One can well understand why people are leaving their homes. It is not easy for anybody to leave his or her home and travel hundreds of thousands of miles to get a better home for himself or herself. We know too well how millions of our own people - in the 19th century, in the early part of the 20th century and right up to recent times - went abroad seeking a better future. Some of those who went in the 19th century did so in dire circumstances. That is the situation in the war-torn Middle East and north Africa at present.
We have been derelict in our duty in dealing with the countries adjacent to the conflicts. When I was Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade with responsibility for trade and development, in 2012 and 2013, I travelled to the Middle East and visited Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. This was during the early stages of the Syrian war. I witnessed the heroic efforts that were made by those countries - with precious few resources in the case of Lebanon and Jordan - to take in refugees streaming across their borders from Syria with very few resources. Irish Aid did fantastic work in providing funding, food and equipment there at a level that was disproportionate to that supplied by many other countries in the European Union and elsewhere.
I particularly recall visiting a camp in Jordan and seeing the situation which obtained there. It is a camp which is now home to over 200,000 people but at that time there were only 16,000 refugees in it. Already, three countries, two of which are two of the largest member states in the European Union, had decided - off their own bat and despite requests from the Government of Jordan for the type of aid it wanted - that they would send field hospitals. Three fully equipped field hospitals were sent - two by two prominent European countries and one by an Arab nation - and they used the opportunity to highlight the generosity of those countries. At the same time, the Jordanian authorities were telling us that they did not need any field hospitals because they had already provided one themselves and specified that they needed other types of resources, funding and equipment. Often, we can have a situation where countries will decide to donate something that they think is appropriate but that is not appropriate to the situation.
The Governments and Ministers of the countries to which I refer were telling us they needed more resources and asked how they were going to educate the children coming to their country from Syria and generate employment for them, particularly as the refugees would be coming into camps. Initially, they were spread around the country and they had been received in a welcoming fashion but these countries, which lack major resources, were overwhelmed by the numbers.
The next step then is, of course, that if the countries adjacent to the conflict are overwhelmed with refugees, the flow of the latter will move further afield. That is precisely what has happened. The requisite resources were not put in place as they should have been and the situation became like that which obtains in this country at present with the Shannon overflowing its banks. As a result, all of the emigrants are now heading for Europe.
There has been a lack of coherence, of a serious approach and of unity on the part of the European Union in dealing with this matter. That is the context in which immigration is taking place at such a level at present. I compliment the Minister on agreeing to accept a particular number of refugees.
The Bill deals largely with the current situation but it also looks to the future as well. Certainly, it deals with the unacceptable system which obtains in Ireland and which is not fit for purpose. I refer here to the system of direct provision. The latter was presented and developed as a short-term measure but it has become a long-term one. That is unacceptable. It has been both inhumane and degrading for people to have had to live for extended periods in the circumstances in which they have been obliged to live. That is not done for the worst of reasons by the authorities. However, the process can be long and drawn out and it needs to be streamlined and fast-tracked. We need to ensure that people spend the minimum amount of time in this type of institutional detention or containment. It would be welcome if we could seriously address that issue. I am delighted the latter is a particular focus of the Bill because it means that those who have been living in direct provision for donkeys' years can now begin to live normal and fulfilling lives and their children can be properly raised and properly educated. There are approximately 4,500 people still in direct provision. The numbers have come down somewhat but they remain high. Many of those in direct provision have Irish-born children. Nevertheless, they languish in a system which is not only ineffective but which is damaging to both young people and adults.
If we can reduce the length of time it takes to deal with the matter, it would be wonderful. A previous Minister indicated that he intended to have everything resolved within six months of somebody applying for, at the very least, residency or refugee status here. We will be obliged to find a mechanism that will deal with all applications within a short period. I recognise the difficulty in doing that because so many people will arrive without proper documents. The circumstances in which migrants are being trafficked into the country - some of them having been obliged to travel long distances to get here - and the systems which obtain in certain of the countries from which they come, mean that many arrive without passports or other documentation that would help them prove their identities.
While our authorities must be careful, the process of getting back to the country of origin and determining exactly the situation there is a long, drawn-out process.
I deal with many people who have difficulty getting refugee status and naturalisation. A man I know from Zimbabwe who has a stamp 4 visa is unable to apply for naturalisation given that he is unable to get a valid passport from his country of birth. He has been waiting for 14 years and no reply is forthcoming. I have spoken repeatedly to the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, INIS. He initially received leave to remain and now has a stamp 4 visa. He was born in Zimbabwe but grew up in an orphanage in South Africa and knows little about his background in Zimbabwe. Despite his best efforts, he has been unable to get a birth certificate or passport from Zimbabwe or South Africa. He has two daughters, one born in Ireland, and has custody of both. He is frustrated at every turn. There are hard cases involving people who have been living in Ireland for many years and we seem unable to deal with them efficiently. I would like cases of this nature dealt with, if possible. I could speak for a long time on the issue.
I am sure other speakers have brought to the Minister's attention the fact that the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, and the Irish Refugee Council have expressed a number of concerns about the legislation, which they have enumerated in 20 to 30 points. It would be good to go through them carefully, as I am sure the Minister will. I am sure the Minister will have a ready ear to all the suggestions for amendments or improvements in the long list of concerns expressed by those who have been at the forefront of dealing with refugees over the years. I am delighted that the legislation is being brought forward after 19 years and that the Minister has taken the initiative. We should progress it as quickly as possible and pass it before the Government comes to an end.
I, too, welcome the Bill and I welcome the Minister. I have listened to many of the speeches. While I found a number of the speeches enlightening and interesting, I am seriously concerned about some of the statements, particularly from the absent members of the Opposition. The primary purpose of the Bill is to introduce a single procedure for the processing of applications for international protection, which is the term used to describe the protection granted by a state to a refugee or person eligible for subsidiary protection. It is a significant issue in my constituency, in the Louth and Meath area, where a number of people seeking protection are living in Mosney, or have left Mosney and are residing in the community, and still have significant issues regarding stamp 4 visas and family members.
I acknowledge the excellent work the INIS does. Whenever we raise issues regarding people seeking a different status or to have their status recognised, there is a very efficient and professional response. The introduction of a single procedure will address current delays in the protection application system. There are very significant delays and there have been significant increases in the number of people seeking refugee status. Applications for refugee status increased by 53% in 2014, and in February 2015 the number of applications was 138% ahead of the same period in 2014.
There is a significant international crisis due to geopolitical events, and many Members have spoken about them. When there is military intervention, from whatever side, in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, it leads to major destabilisation of the lives of ordinary people. Millions of people are refugees as a result of it. I support the view that we should do whatever can be done to support countries that are adjacent to those countries and offer protection to the refugees. I welcome that the EU, the US, Russia and other countries recognise the need to create stability in the locations nearest to the home countries of the refugees in order that when political stability is restored, they are in a position to return. There is an urgent need to do this. There is no point in replacing one evil dictator with another one, as has been done, regrettably, and allowing more of the same.
I agree with the parallels that have been drawn between refugees from Ireland in the 18th and 19th centuries and the refugees who are here now. The millions of Irish people who left our shores in the 18th and 19th centuries went due to extreme poverty at home because they had no education or future and because the only place of hope and opportunity was America. Roman Catholics were a minority in America when they went there first. The Irish people had a different religion, spoke a different language, did not have education and skills and were looked down on and discriminated against for a significant number of years. Only after the American Civil War and the sacrifices Irish people made during it were Irish people fully integrated into American society. Despite this, we have made significant progress in America.
We need to ensure there is continuing progress by refugees who live in our society, who have the right to remain here and whose children are as Irish as anybody else's children. We need to integrate people from the immigrant community into public life. Whoever the next Taoiseach is, I suggest he or she consider appointing somebody from the immigrant community to the Seanad to give them a clear voice in our Parliament to speak with clarity, knowledge and authority about the issues immigrants face as they fully integrate into our society. We often have a difficulty finding a clear voice for immigrants. No doubt immigrant candidates will stand for election. If they are not elected to the Oireachtas, we should ensure and insist they are represented here in order that their views can be taken into account by the Members of the next Dáil.
Some issues have been raised about the Bill. I have received a huge number of e-mails, many of which came from abroad. I do not mind reading e-mails and it is a very important issue. While they all seem to have the same text, the subtext is that people are concerned about issues regarding the legislation, and it is right and proper that we address them. The main advantage of the Bill is that it will create a one-stop-shop. A family that comes here will go through a process at the end of which they will have a clear, definitive decision in a very short time. It will make a significant difference to all the families and the State. The proposed procedures in the Bill are clearly outlined.
The Bill provides for the right of a person granted refugee or subsidiary protection to apply for permission for certain family members to enter and reside in the State, or where a family member is in the State, permission to reside. It is limited to the nuclear family and does not include dependants. I ask the Minister to expand on it on Committee Stage.
I refer to cases in which parents who have dependants have been allowed in. If the mum and dad can come in, I would not have an issue with their dependants coming in as well.
Obviously, the other issue that arises is the question of an alternative permission to remain. When a recommendation is made that an applicant should not be given refugee status or subsidiary protection, and the declaration of the tribunal affirms such a recommendation, the Minister must consider whether to give the applicant permission to remain in the State. This Bill requires the Minister to do certain things in such circumstances. It also requires the interviewer to deal with the issue in a separate way. It provides that an applicant can submit information that is relevant to obtaining permission to remain in the context of the preparation of a report on the matter. This appears to be the only provision in the Bill that expressly allows an applicant to submit representations for permission to remain. This potentially creates a separate process for applying for permission to remain. In doing so, it raises the issue of whether the Bill in fact provides for a single procedure in which each applicant has to make one application only and will have all grounds for seeking international protection, and being permitted to remain in the State, examined and determined in a single process.
Those are the issues with the Bill. I now want to deal with the serious issues that have arisen in relation to children in direct provision. Those issues were addressed, first, by HIQA in its report of November 2014 and subsequently by Tusla in May of this year when it replied to what HIQA had said about them. I compliment HIQA, which is to be commended on the absolute integrity of its reportage, on the conviction and professionalism with which its reports are done and on the decisive and incisive analysis it gives. I would like to read some of its findings on the record:
Data from the Child and Family Agency showed that there were 209 referrals of child protection and welfare concerns about 229 children living in direct provision accommodation in the 12 months between August 2013 and 2014. This represented approximately 14% of the population of children living in direct provision. This is a significantly higher referral rate than for the general child population of 1.6%. Of the 209 referrals, 178 (85%) reached the relevant threshold criteria for an initial assessment. This is considerably higher than the average threshold of 50% of all referrals in 2013 that required initial assessment and [this] requires further analysis by key stakeholders to determine reasons for the disparity.
The report continues:
During fieldwork in four areas, inspectors found common themes arising from welfare concerns including physical or mental illness of parents impacting on their capacity to care for their children, children’s mental health issues, and gaps in the provision of practical support. The child protection concerns included exposure of children to domestic violence, physical abuse due to excessive physical chastisement, protection concerns about older children left caring for younger children, and children being left alone unsupervised.
Of concern were referrals arising from children’s living conditions that were outside of the control of the Child and Family Agency but had resulted in referrals to their service. These included inappropriate contact by adults towards some children in accommodation centres; children sustaining accidental injuries where cramped living conditions were identified as a contributing factor; and exposure of children to violence between residents. Other [issues] from accommodation providers reflected breaches in the rules of the centres such as children left 'home alone' or unsupervised. However, following assessment by social workers, they found that many of these children were left alone for short periods when a lone parent went to queue for laundry or food. To support these children and families, many practitioners provided excellent child-centred services and strived to meet [their] needs ...
For a small number of children, action was not taken to protect them. Cases were closed prematurely and in one area, Louth-Meath, there were significant delays in completing assessments and sharing information, which placed children at risk and some children were not interviewed as part of the assessment process. In this area children did not receive the services they needed, initial assessments were not completed and some risks were not addressed. Inspectors found that on occasion the Reception and Integration Agency moved families for safety reasons but gaps in communication ... at local level meant that this information was not always passed on and, as a result, some social work interventions were delayed or did not happen and potentially placed children at risk.
The quality of the child protection and welfare service ... was inconsistent. The quality and level of service varied across the four areas visited. In Sligo-Leitrim-West Cavan and in Dublin North City a good quality of service was provided to these children and their families, in the Midlands the service was mixed, indicating a variance in the quality of service provided between the two teams, but in Louth-Meath, the service was much poorer and some risks had not been identified and addressed by managers.
There was no strategic plan in place to identify and meet the needs of this particularly vulnerable group of children and families. Inspectors found there was no effective mechanism to gather data about these children and there was no process to identify risks to them ... The Child and Family Agency did not collect data on the different ethnic groups referred to their services and ethnicity was not regularly recorded in children’s files. As a result, all of the areas struggled to provide the information requested by the Authority about referrals of children in direct provision accommodation. There was no analysis of emerging trends about referrals or the results of initial assessments in spite of the higher than average rate of referrals ... As a result it was not possible for managers to carry out a needs analysis [that was essential].
The report goes on in significant detail over 30 pages. It goes through all the different issues. As I live in and represent the area of Louth and east Meath, I am concerned to note that Tusla clearly failed in its duty of care to these children. It is not just the children who were failed. The HIQA report states that in the Louth-Meath area, Tusla met just one of the 27 parameters of assessment that child welfare services are required to meet. I met the chief executive and the chief operations officer of Tusla. Since then, I have met a number of people who work in the agency. I acknowledge their acknowledgement of the errors that were made and the failure to provide the supports that should have been there. I acknowledge their response in the action plan, particularly as it relates to children who are in direct provision, which was published on the HIQA website on 26 May last.
I welcome all the significant changes being made by Tusla. We have to ensure it has the support, resources, qualified people and social workers to provide the services that are needed. I do not doubt that Tusla wants to provide such services and that, as an Oireachtas, we want it to do so. We want to ensure all our children are treated equally, regardless of whether they are in Louth and Meath, Cavan and Monaghan or Cork and Kerry. They are all entitled to the same professional supports, standards of care and resources. If financial resources are needed to ensure all our children are kept safe, that must be addressed immediately. I refer specifically today to the children who are in need and at risk in direct provision, as a greater proportion of them are at risk by comparison with the community outside direct provision.
This is a very important Bill. I do not think there is any controversy about the principle of having a one-stop-shop to deal with applications and put them through as quickly as possible. Many people from direct provision have come into my office with their children, who are not children anymore because they are going to university now. I welcome the Government's recent decision to support such students by giving them the same status as Irish-born students. This means they will not have to pay the huge fees that are paid by students from outside the EU. A great deal of progress has been made. The Government is recognising in this legislation that things need to change. They are changing.
Behind all of this are children who are vulnerable and there are more such children than in the average community so we need greater support services to look after them. I look forward to the debate on Committee Stage.
I thank the Deputies who have contributed to the discussion on this Bill. I will take up a number of individual points that have been raised by Deputies. Deputy Olivia Mitchell asked whether older people could benefit from family reunification. Older people are identified as a category under section 57, which acknowledges categories of vulnerable people. The Bill fully complies with all rights set out in international law. I share Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan's points relating to vulnerable groups and section 57 has a very comprehensive list of categories which includes people with disabilities, older people, pregnant women, single parents, victims of human trafficking, people with mental health concerns, people subject to torture, rape or serious psychological, physical or sexual violence. Domestic violence was raised earlier in the debate and there are a number of sections dealing with the best interest of the child, about which I will say a bit more in a moment.
There are wider issues relating to direct provision which I, the Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, and the Government are committed to addressing, and are addressing in a variety of ways. Work is going on in the area of direct provision and the people on the front line know about the decisions that have been taken recently on many individual cases. These people have sat in front of me and confirmed that it is happening. In another initiative, a number of agencies have gone into direct provision centres and held information meetings with residents who have gone through the process and are waiting for accommodation. New information material is being provided as a result of consultation with Citizens Information and other agencies, all of which are working together to make sure residents can be more empowered and better supported as they go through the process. The Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, is leading a working group dealing with the accommodation needs of people who are still in direct provision but who have gone through the process and need accommodation now because they have been deemed to be refugees. This is happening and the numbers have reduced.
There has been a decision from the Minister for Health on prescription charges not applying and from the Minister for Education and Skills on access to university. These are all very important initiatives and there is more work to be done. The Bill was not intended to deal with the very wide range of other issues. A number of Deputies have said there were X recommendations in total but that we were only dealing with a certain number. However, not all of the recommendations were dealing with the process. Some dealt with other issues, such as the proper inspection of direct provision centres on which we have been working. Of the recommendations of the working group, we are putting forward 26 relating to individuals applying for protection.
People also made comments about victims of the conflict in Syria. Ireland did not have to opt in to the measures put forward at European level in the JHA Council. We opted in voluntarily, and very quickly, because we felt it was the right thing to do. Clearly, there is a huge international situation and a humanitarian crisis. As Deputy Mac Lochlainn said, it is one of the most serious crises the world has faced in respect of refugees. I have heard some very simplistic and reductionist comments about the international refugee situation from certain Deputies, who talked about the foreign policy of the Irish Government. I reject reductionist comments about the scale of the world's refugee problems and about the complicity of the Irish Government. Deputy Olivia Mitchell, in her very thoughtful contribution, pointed out the scale and complexity of the world refugee problem. Our Department of Foreign Affairs can look at funding we give internationally or we can consider, at the JHA meeting, the type of support we need to give to African countries near to the countries from where the vast majority of the exodus is happening. Clearly, there are major development aid issues and climate change is one of many factors causing the situation at present, as is the humanitarian crisis in Syria which is causing very significant numbers to come to Europe. A reductionist and simple view of this situation does nobody any favours as it is a complex international situation.
This Bill provides a framework compliant with international humanitarian law to make sure genuine asylum or protection seekers are not deported or made subject to prolonged direct provision, and that includes children. I want to give the best protection possible to children in the context of what is a protection and immigration Bill. I am mindful of the constitutional changes we have made relating to children and these apply to all children in this country. I will examine carefully the amendments being put forward for Committee Stage and I am accepting some amendments which have been made already relating to children. In so far as I am in a position to do so, I will make sure we have the strongest possible provisions in the context of immigration.
While we have constitutional protection for the rights of all children, we have specific rights relating to adoption and custody. There are certain legal issues which I have to keep in mind in framing the provisions in this Bill. Deputy Mac Lochlainn made certain points which were the subject of amendments put forward by his party in the Seanad. The language may not be precisely the same but I believe those points are already captured, in other language, in the Bill and I will address them on Committee Stage. Some amendments have come in suggesting we are not dealing with certain aspects but a closer examination of the Bill shows that we are dealing with them.
Section 24 concerns the examination to determine the age of an unaccompanied minor and it states: "The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the application of this section." As regards applicants who are unaccompanied minors, section 35 states that the officer shall act "taking the best interests of the child as a primary consideration". For anything to do with unaccompanied minors, the person making the determination will act in the best interest of the child. For vulnerable persons, too, the best interest of the child shall be a primary consideration. Obviously, children who arrive here unaccompanied or are seeking refugee status are in vulnerable situations but their best interest will be a primary consideration.
Deputy Mac Lochlainn also made a point about children being prevented from competing in international sporting events because of reporting duties. The Minister can use discretion in this regard and specific circumstances are always considered. As applicants, they do not have permission to leave the State but there is a discretionary clause that can be used. It is right to use it and it should not be unnecessarily restrictive in those circumstances.
Deputy Clare Daly talked about the harrowing case of a tortured individual but that is precisely the sort of case that should get refugee status.
As a result of this Bill, such a person will get recognition within a much shorter period than was the case previously. The Bill can only benefit genuine refugees, as we remove the delays in the system. The delays disadvantage qualified applicants because they have led to people having to spend years in direct provision. For example, we assume the new migrants will get refugee status because they are mainly from Syria, but those applications will be dealt with in a quick way as well. We have allocated funding to ensure there are extra officers so people can be assessed more quickly when they arrive here.
With regard to LGBT people, obviously they are to be considered under the protection category set out under international law. If they are being persecuted, they are protected under the Bill and are clearly recognised in our protection process already.
Senator Bacik outlined on the record the NGOs that welcome the Bill. I accept that a number of them have spoken about their various reservations, but the advice we got from various NGOs has shaped the approach to the Bill and influenced the amendments we tabled and which we will table in the Dáil.
I reject the notion that only a cursory examination will be given to applicants under the provisions of the Bill. That would be unlawful. It would unacceptably alter the current protection process, which complies with UNHCR standards. I cannot accept the argument that we should retain the very cumbersome and layered system we have at present. It is out of kilter with the approach taken by other European countries. The current approach is unacceptable to all who seek to rely on an effectively functioning, humane and beneficial protection system. We want to have such a system in place.
I refer to the discussion on the right to work, which was one of the recommendations in the working group report. The intention of the Bill is to give a protection decision within six months. People who are granted refugee status have a right to work. With this legislation in place, the determination will be received within six months, so people will know within six months whether they have the right to work. The Bill helps people in that situation because, again, they will not be waiting around endlessly.
With regard to family reunification, Ireland has prioritised families under the Irish refugee protection programme. People granted status under the Bill will have 12 months to apply for family reunification. Deputies expressed some concerns about the 12-month period. If there is a family member who, for whatever reason, is not identified in the first process and within the 12-month period, that person can always apply as an individual for refugee status. Their needs can be taken into account, including the fact that their family members are here already. It should be borne in mind that if somebody does not come here under family reunification, he or she can still make an individual application and be considered in that context.
On the points raised about education, all applicants have a right to access education at first and second level and up to FETAC level 4. I mentioned the recent decision of the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, with regard to ensuring that children in the direct provision system will now have access to university. That was a humane and proper decision given the length of time and the fact that many of these young people, and it is not a large number, had been through primary and secondary schooling in this country.
At a time in Europe when there is clearly great need to offer protection, it is vital that our resources are targeted at, and available to, those in need of protection and that we ensure the security and integrity of the State are paramount at all times. I have said repeatedly that it is very important there is no confusion between the challenge of the international humanitarian situation, particularly the situation in the Balkans and the Mediterranean, and the other big challenge facing Europe in terms of security and tourism. I agree with what was said by a number of Deputies, including Deputy Mac Lochlainn, who made the point that we should not confuse the two. Obviously, however, some security considerations apply and we must ensure all of the initiatives in respect of fingerprinting and proper data being collected on those who seek refugee status are implemented as well.
This Bill establishes a single application procedure which brings us in line with the procedures undertaken in other EU member states. In supporting this Bill, we are moving closer to reforming the protection process into a single application procedure. I believe it will bring significant improvement in how the State conducts itself in the asylum area and in how we respond to those whose genuine applications deserve a timely and positive outcome. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 71; Níl, 20.
Tá
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Breen, Pat.
- Butler, Ray.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Byrne, Eric.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carey, Joe.
- Coffey, Paudie.
- Collins, Áine.
- Conaghan, Michael.
- Connaughton, Paul J.
- Conway, Ciara.
- Coonan, Noel.
- Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
- Costello, Joe.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Creed, Michael.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deasy, John.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Deering, Pat.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dowds, Robert.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Ferris, Anne.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Harrington, Noel.
- Harris, Simon.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Humphreys, Kevin.
- Keating, Derek.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lawlor, Anthony.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- Lyons, John.
- McEntee, Helen.
- McFadden, Gabrielle.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McLoughlin, Tony.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Nash, Gerald.
- Neville, Dan.
- Nolan, Derek.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Reilly, Joe.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Perry, John.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Troy, Robert.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
Níl
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Collins, Joan.
- Colreavy, Michael.
- Daly, Clare.
- Donnelly, Stephen S.
- Fleming, Tom.
- Halligan, John.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McDonald, Mary Lou.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McLellan, Sandra.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Murphy, Paul.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- O'Brien, Jonathan.
- Ross, Shane.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Mary Lou McDonald and Pádraig Mac Lochlainn.
Question declared carried.
When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?
Next Wednesday.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 16 December 2015.