Joint Committee on Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth debate -
Tuesday, 7 Dec 2021

Experiences of Migrant Communities Engaging with the Healthcare System and State Bodies: Discussion (Resumed)

Vice Chairman

We have received apologies from Deputies John Paul Phelan, Jennifer Murnane O'Connor, Cathal Crowe and Alan Dillon, and from Senators Erin McGreehan, Lynn Ruane and Mary Seery Kearney.

I ask any member or witness participating remotely who experiences sound or technical issues to let us know through the chat function. Otherwise we will proceed. As this is a public meeting the chat function on MS Teams should only be used to advise participants of any technical issue and not for general comments or statements. I remind members who are participating remotely to keep their devices on mute until they are invited to speak. When people are speaking I ask that where possible they have their camera switched on and be mindful that we are in public session.

I remind members of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of the place where Parliament has chosen to sit, namely Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings. I cannot permit members to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore any member who attempts to participate in the meeting from outside the precincts will be refused.

I welcome representatives from Crosscare and the Immigrant Council of Ireland. I welcome Sr. Breege Keenan, project leader, Crosscare refugee service; Mr. Noel Neenan, information and advocacy officer, housing and welfare information with Crosscare; and Mr. Brian Killoran, chief executive officer of the Immigrant Council of Ireland. The purpose of the meeting this afternoon is to engage with experiences of migrant communities engaging with State bodies, the healthcare system and other social services.

Before inviting our guests to deliver their opening statements I will go through parliamentary privilege. As the witnesses are all appearing before the committee virtually, I need to point out there is uncertainty whether parliamentary privilege will apply to their evidence from a location outside of the parliamentary precincts of Leinster House. Therefore, if they are directed by me to cease giving evidence on a particular matter it is imperative that they comply with any such direction. The opening statements will be followed by questions and answers with members. A speaking rota was circulated to members in advance. Members will be allocated five minutes of speaking time. We are low on numbers today so while I will stick with the five minutes we are likely to get through that quite quickly so there will be chances for other members to come back for second or even third rounds of questions if they wish. There will be some flexibility there. I now ask Sr. Keenan to deliver her opening statement.

Sr. Breege Keenan

We would like to thank the committee for the invitation and for giving us the opportunity to highlight the experiences of migrant communities engaging with State bodies, the healthcare system and other social services. Mr. Neenan and I work in Crosscare information and advocacy services, CIAS, which consists of three projects: our housing and welfare information, our refugee service and the migrant project. While the three projects have discrete target groups and areas of expertise, we work collaboratively on crosscutting issues and work towards a common goal of increased stability and quality of life for vulnerable and marginalised populations. We work with EEA and non-EEA migrants, refugees, family members of refugees and Irish nationals who return with their non-EU family members. CIAS takes a multipronged approach to addressing the needs of migrants which includes direct information and support; capacity building of service providers and influencing policy through shared learning, networking and advocacy.

Organisations like Crosscare and the Immigrant Council of Ireland are some of the most trusted ones among migrant communities. While we sometimes have to critique statutory bodies and advocate strongly on behalf of our clients when they cannot access their rights and entitlements, we are involved in many initiatives in partnership with Government Departments and agencies.

From March 2020 we reconfigured our work so that we could support our clients remotely, retaining in-person meetings for clients with literacy, language and digital literacy issues. This was only possible due to the experience and knowledge gained over years of close work with migrant communities, and a real awareness of their unique needs. In 2020, more than 11,000 people from more than 5,000 households and from 125 countries benefited from our services.

Our work is becoming more challenging as State bodies move many services online. While these are effective for those who are skilled and digitally capable, they can form very significant barriers for many migrants where language, literacy, access to devices and digital skills are not present and the migrant is alienated and left behind. Migrants who come to work must register online with Revenue and with the Department of Social Protection for a PPS number. Non-EEA migrants need to register with Immigration Service Delivery, ISD, to obtain their Irish residence permit, IRP, card and for a PPS number, among other things. For all online services migrants need to have an email address and assumptions are made as to their understanding of English and digital skills.

We are culturally sensitive to the needs of migrants and take an intercultural approach which is about making the unfamiliar more familiar and understanding what it is like to walk in somebody else’s shoes. Many officials fail to recognise the effect migration has on an individual and how his or her experiences in his or her country of origin can impact on his or her engagement with State bodies. For example, a refugee received a phone call from an official who told her quite simply that if she found a job and was working she would not be depressed. Many refugees and migrants are victims of unspeakable atrocities which make them vulnerable to depression and post-traumatic stress.

The absence of appropriate levels of interpreter services directly impacts the capacity for certain vulnerable migrant households to engage with and be served by State bodies. Our 2018 research document, "Do you speak English?", explored the extent to which the Department of Social Protection’s policy to provide interpreters was implemented and accessed by customers. It showed limited use of interpreters, and in many cases children effectively providing these services. It is wrong to have children interpreting for their parents, due the sensitive issues that have to be discussed. We believe that all migrants should be able to communicate in their own native language. The Department of Social Protection is one of the few public services that has a publicly available interpreting facility. For example, local authorities and the Department of Justice do not appear to have any interpreter services.

Evidence shows that migrants are disproportionately impacted by the housing and homelessness crisis. While making up less than a fifth of the population nationally, migrants represent one third of the homeless population in the Dublin region.

Non-EU migrants have the additional layer of immigration residency permission that can limit their ability to access social services. This is most likely to become evident in situations of crisis that precipitate homelessness; for example, family breakdown, domestic violence and family members joining their sponsor under the International Protection Act 2015.

While cognisant of limited resources, we see some concerning evidence of families being split across emergency shelter provision. A refugee presented to a local authority and there was no hostel available to accommodate the sponsor with his family, who had just arrived in Ireland from a war-torn country and were unable to speak English. When he contacted the local authority, he wrote in a WhatsApp message:

I ring the number. She’s gone mad. She’s telling me that if I couldn’t afford then why did you bring your family to Ireland. I couldn’t let them die in... she said she’s gonna speak to someone and she will call me back. I hope that she will ring me back.

Later, when he contacted us again, he said:

They did find a place for my wife and daughter but she is crying, she doesn’t want to go [there] alone. I am trying to make her understand.

The above example illustrates to us a service provider under extreme pressure who also appears to have no cultural understanding of what that family had gone through. Despite migrants being disproportionately impacted by the housing crisis, there is no mention of housing and homelessness in the current migrant integration strategy. Crosscare has campaigned to have it included in the next strategy and is hopeful it will be given due consideration.

Local authorities' reliance on the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage's housing Circular 41/2012, Access to social housing supports for non-Irish nationals, has long been a factor in barring access to social housing supports including emergency shelter for migrants. The circular is not law but it is relied on by local authorities to assess applications and its guidance is used in an inflexible way to refuse social housing applications, including access to emergency accommodation for migrants who do not fit clearly within one of the categories contained in the circular. While progress has been made in relation to access to emergency shelter, access routes remain unclear and migrants report a hostile environment when trying to access such supports.

I will now speak on the social protection system linked to the immigration system. Non-EU migrants applying to the Department of Social Protection for payments must have a right to reside in the State in order to satisfy the eligibility criteria for means-tested payments. Once right to reside is established, they can proceed to be assessed under the habitual residence condition in order to access assistance payments.

The Department of Social Protection requests that they provide a permission letter from the Department of Justice detailing the conditions of their immigration permission. Not all migrants have permission letters because many register directly with an immigration officer. There may be changes over the years in standard lengths of permission initially granted and in the wording of letters, which can make it confusing for Department of Social Protection staff to ascertain whether a person is able to renew their permission. This is an example of two Departments having different rules and understanding of each other’s processes and the impact is felt by the migrant applicant.

The freedom of movement of workers is intrinsic to the success of the European Union. EU nationals have no automatic Irish social welfare entitlements on arrival in the state. Directive 2004/38/EC sets out that EU nationals have a right to reside in another member state for three months, so long as they do not become a burden on the social assistance system of the state. In order to legally reside for longer than three months, they must be a worker, self-employed person or have sufficient resources for themselves and their family members. Being recognised as economically active or being the family member of another EU citizen with a right to reside can support more direct access to rights and entitlements without the need to satisfy the habitual residence condition, but difficulties often arise.

Overall, migrants can experience difficulties accessing services in the first instance. Difficulties with the correct and consistent application of the right to reside and the habitual residence condition are ongoing. Continuing issues arise due to a lack of front-line awareness of migrants’ vulnerabilities around culture, language, literacy and digital challenges. This extends into job seeking and activation supports offered by the Department of Social Protection.

We have the following recommendations. There should be intercultural awareness training to ensure staff in State bodies are supported and equipped to work with diverse population groups and publicly available protocols. There should be operational guidelines between all State bodies working with migrants, especially the immigration service delivery of the Department of Justice, local authorities and the Department of Social Protection. The deployment of digital services must be sensitised to vulnerable groups. Interpreting services should be readily, widely and on a timely basis available to migrants accessing State bodies. A professional qualification for interpreters like in the UK where they have a diploma in public service interpreting should be developed. Department of Social Protection officials, services and supports need more support around migrant rights and entitlements and services need to be sensitised to migrant vulnerabilities and need for targeted measures. The immigration service delivery in the Department of Justice could provide a clear breakdown of relevant immigration permissions, how permission letters may differ and how permissions can be renewed, including clear references to the fact that some permission letters instruct renewal with local immigration officers and not in writing. In relation to homeless services, access to homeless services must be aligned with the assessment laid down in primary legislation. On social housing, housing Circular 41/2012 must be updated to ensure that it reflects the relevant changes in Irish immigration law, such as the European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) Regulations 2015 and relevant case law.

I thank the committee for listening.

Vice Chairman

I thank Sr. Breege Keenan. We will move onto Mr. Brian Killoran, CEO of the Immigrant Council of Ireland.

Mr. Brian Killoran

I thank the committee for the opportunity to speak to it this afternoon. As a front-lline, non-governmental organisation and independent law centre offering services to migrant communities in Ireland for 20 years, the Immigrant Council of Ireland is very well placed to reflect upon the theme of today's hearing and offer our analysis of some of the issues that present to our services.

In 2020 and 2021, we have consistently provided legal representation to over 200 legal cases through our independent law centre function and responded to over 5,000 headline queries to our national telephone helpline. In terms of our legal representation, the cases that we represent range across the whole area of the immigration system. We have attained particular capacity for extreme vulnerability within that system, primarily around gender-based violence issues, such as supports to victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation and victims of domestic violence, as well as issues of unaccompanied minors who are in the State and have legal needs.

The lens of the Covid-19 pandemic and the associated impact it has had on both the lives of migrant communities in Ireland and the services with which they interact cannot be overstated and in many ways have magnified and intensified some of the long-standing issues in how we as a State support migrants here. While I am speaking mainly on the experiences of migrants and interacting with the immigration system, our experience touches on many areas of relevance to the topic being looked at today.

As Sr. Breege Keenan's opening remarks touched on, immigration status, rights and entitlements constitute a theme that cuts across much integration experiences and rights and entitlements that flow for a person from that immigration status. In 2020 and 2021, the administration of our immigration system in Ireland has strained under the pressure of its bureaucratic nature. In some instances it has ground to a halt, not only for those seeking to come to Ireland but for those for whom Ireland is home.

A prominent issue regards the registration of non-EEA nationals who are legally residing in Ireland on various immigration permissions. With the closure of the Burgh Quay registration office in Dublin under public health restrictions and the associated closure of registration offices across the country, those who needed to renew their immigration permission were unable to do so. That situation has resolved somewhat but the impact remains in terms of people's inability to get appointments for registration, as well as the online registration system being difficult to navigate and, unfortunately, still plagued by bots and extreme delays for people renewing and registering initial permissions to remain in the State.

The Department of Justice correctly issued statements confirming blanket renewals of all immigration permissions for those impacted, but the inability to have an in-date registration card caused and continues to cause huge problems. Our services have seen people who have lost their job as their card was expired and their employer did not understand the situation and did not want to do anything wrong by employing someone who could not present a valid, in-date immigration permission. We have seen people interview for roles they were successful in getting but could not take up as they could not convince an employer of the nature of their legal residency without a registration card. We have repeatedly seen people go to social welfare offices and be asked to produce a valid, in-date certificate of registration, their Garda registration card, which it was impossible for them to do through no fault of their own. Registration issues have been problematic and the overall processing of applications in the immigration system has slowed down considerably in the last two years.

While that is understandable to the extent that the Covid-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on all of us, whether individual members of the public or Departments and State services, we are still dealing with the fall-out from that situation and the magnifying effect it had on highlighting the bureaucracy and inefficiency of the immigration system.

All the issues mentioned are magnified manyfold for those particularly marginalised in the system, namely, those in direct provision, victims of human trafficking, migrant women in domestic violence circumstances, unaccompanied minors and many more. In addition, those with linguistic, computer literacy or overall trauma challenges, for example, are further disenfranchised.

We may say this situation is a moment in time but it highlights endemic issues that predate the pandemic. First, there is the overly bureaucratic and paper-based nature of many of our immigration processes. Second, there is a lack of clarity regarding rights and entitlements that often accompany a person’s immigration status. Third, there is the issue of communication and co-ordination across Government services and Departments regarding an individual’s status and rights. It is true that the pandemic was and continues to be a uniquely difficult scenario for all, including Departments. We welcomed throughout the pandemic open lines of communication with the Department of Justice, for example, regarding the difficulties faced. However, the challenges were huge and persist in having an ongoing impact.

The issues experienced magnified an existing need for which we and others in civil society have been calling for many years, namely, the need to modernise and reform our immigration system in Ireland. We note and welcome that the Department of Justice has identified immigration reform as a priority in its current action plan and welcome the opportunity to feed into that process from our experience as a service provider, as I am sure many other civil society organisations, community groups, migrant-led groups and others will as well.

As regards the remit of this committee, we wish to highlight the reality that an individual’s integration experience is often intrinsically linked to their immigration status and the rights which flow from it.

Time does not permit me to go into further detail, but I am happy to discuss these issues and our recommendations for reform in follow-up questions, as well as pointing out the positives that exist and the opportunities that arise through the likes of the migrant integration strategy, as Sr. Breege mentioned.

I would like to raise the issue of the communication of health, in particular vaccine, information to migrant communities and the deficiencies that have been identified in that area of late. This issue is not just one of information, but of challenging disinformation within certain sections of migrant communities. A strategy is needed in this area that directly engages migrants at grassroots levels, with migrant-led organisations, leaders and migrant-relevant media being targeted to address the shortfalls in the communication strategy of the last two years. Again, time does not permit me to go into further detail on this, but I am happy to discuss it in follow up. I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it. I am happy to discuss the positives and our recommendations in follow-up questions.

Senator Sharon Keogan

I thank Sr. Breege and Mr. Killoran for their testimony. I have three questions. First, regarding the current paper-based immigration system the witnesses have raised as an issue, what do they suggest instead? What would be a preferable immigration system or process and what would they like to see implemented? Second, regarding the lack of communication of vaccine information to migrant communities, is there an example or figure demonstrating the impact this is having on vaccine uptake in those communities? What has been the cause of the increased spread of vaccine disinformation in migrant communities? Third, regarding the issue of communication of rights and entitlements to migrant populations, can examples be given of the real-world impact this is having? What particularly important rights and entitlements need to be but are not being communicated?

Mr. Brian Killoran

While "paper-based immigration system" may be a bit of a catch-all term, essentially we mean there is a high level of bureaucracy in the system. Some of it is digitised while some of the application processes are very paper-based and document-heavy. One answer is digitisation. That has an impact on the ability of some members of the community to access it but overall it would give people from a migrant background the ability to make applications online, submit documents online and check the status of applications online and to do so in secure formats that will not require, for example, repeated written correspondence with the Department of Justice checking the status of an application or correspondence back and forth with officials in the Department looking for documentation and sometimes requesting documentation that already has been submitted.

Some of it is about the channels into the Department of Justice in terms of how people communicate things, but it is also about communication within the Department regarding a person's status and the documents that have been submitted. An example will come up where somebody has gone through five years of legal residency in the State, registered his or her presence, submitted his or her documents, met all the terms and conditions through the years and then applies for Irish citizenship at the end of it. He or she will go through the citizenship process and will have to submit everything again. Such people have to get documents from one part of the Department and submit them to another part. That level of communication is bureaucratically difficult on the applicant and it is a massive drain on State resources to go through this level of double and triple bureaucracy in some cases.

Some of that has improved of late. The Department of Justice, in the case of citizenship, has not required people to submit their passport again. Small tweaks and changes can make a big difference. We urge the Department as part of its commitment to immigration reform-----

(Interruptions).

Mr. Brian Killoran

There has been some information of late on the poor levels of take-up of the vaccine among certain ethnic minority or nationality groups in Ireland. Our own organisation does a lot of work with grassroots migrant communities and, from what the leaders of those groups say to us, a lot of the issue is that because of the nature of the pandemic over the last two years, migrant communities have to a certain extent gone into a situation of relying upon themselves again because of the reduced levels of interaction, inability to go to work and inability to do normal things. Within that, the channels the people rely upon for information include social media and media channels, some of which come from their own home countries. In many of those home countries, there is a high level of vaccine scepticism but also a high level of vaccine disinformation. That needs to be looked at, analysed, and challenged. We need leaders from migrant communities to be empowered to engage with their own communities around those issues and get back to the situation where we can address some of the shortfall in that area.

On the real-world impact, Sr. Keenan and I touched upon this in our initial interventions. There is very little, if any, communication across Government Departments as regards what a person’s rights or entitlements are. The Department of Justice will issue somebody with immigration status but when the person goes to the social protection office, in some instances it is clear but if there is anything in question whatsoever, they will have to go through a very bureaucratic rigmarole with another Government Department to explain again what their immigration status is and what their rights and entitlements should be. There are numerous barriers. For example, somebody might be on a type of permission from the Department of Justice which is based on the Minister's discretion but does not fit into a clear category. If that person applies to get a SUSI grant because they want to go to third level education, SUSI can say it is not clear enough in terms of describing what the person’s immigration status is and, therefore, they do not qualify for the SUSI grant. We see this a lot with victims of trafficking. It is an example of that lack of communication. Each Government Department is siloed to a large extent and there needs to be co-ordination across Departments so as not to impede a person's integration. Sr. Keenan might want to add to that.

Vice Chairman

Mr. Neenan wanted to speak but I am conscious of the time, which is supposed to include the questions and answers.

Senator Sharon Keogan

If the Vice Chairman does not mind, I have to go now and I will allow the other speakers to come in. I thank the witnesses for answering the questions.

Vice Chairman

I should have said that I let Senator Keogan in first because she has to go to speak in the Seanad and she requested to come in earlier. I call Senator Ned O'Sullivan.

Senator Ned O'Sullivan

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for coming before us. I acknowledge the work they do, and very difficult work it must be. I am sure I speak for the Vice Chairman and all of the other members of this committee when I say we will be only too happy to offer any support and assistance that we are able to give.

I have a number of questions of a general nature. The first concerns the two groups represented here today. A bugbear of mine across the political spectrum is that we seem to have a lot of groups on every issue. Are there many other groups in the field of migrant support and help, and do they co-operate with each other? From what I see, they do, given the interaction between Mr. Killoran and our other two witnesses. I welcome that and I ask if it is generally the case across the board. Having too many cooks to spoil the broth is a bugbear I have about most things like this.

How do the witnesses find the attitude of State agencies to migrants in general and to the work of the migrant support organisations in particular? I am talking about the Civil Service, politicians like us and, in particular at local level, the local councillors. How do such organisations relate to the State and how do they find the attitude of State bodies? There might be some outstanding good examples of that co-operation that the witnesses could mention to us, if they are there.

I note from the presentation by Sr. Keenan that the work of her organisation is mostly in counties Wicklow and Dublin. Is it very much an east coast problem? Naturally, the metropolitan area and the greater Dublin area would be the first point of entry for immigrants. Are there support services that her organisation supplies or offers on a nationwide basis? Given I am a Kerry man, perhaps the south west is an example.

I take on board that language difficulties must be a very serious problem. There are so many languages. We all know who the main immigrant groups are from our own communities. I know there is a very sizeable Polish community in my area and I picked up a few little bits of Polish in my time, not that it would get me very far in Warsaw on holidays. There must be a lot of minor languages out there and it must be difficult to have interpreters for each and every single one of the languages. Did the witnesses ever consider bringing out a small handy booklet of vocabulary that could be given to people arriving, no matter what language they speak? It might be multifunctional, with just the basics, for example, “Where is this place?” or “How do I cross the road?”, and so on.

The housing area is a big problem for both organisations here today and is probably the biggest problem the whole country is facing at the moment. With regard to the provision of social housing, do the organisations find resistance from local communities? I have to say that, anecdotally, I pick up some resistance when houses are being allocated to people with strange sounding names from faraway places, and the locals wonder if they are being squeezed out. I know a lot of that is very unfair, and I am giving a flippant enough outline of it. However, I am sure it must be an issue.

As to the migrants themselves, what is their attitude to us in Ireland generally? Do the witnesses find they have respect for this country? Do they accept our ways and are they happy enough to assimilate into our lifestyle and the way we do things? In particular, do they respect our laws? Again, any crime that is committed by a foreign national always seems to get the headline and, no more than with the Traveller community, that is very unfair. In general, do the witnesses find they are anxious to blend in with the community here in Ireland?

In that respect, and I know vaccinations have been mentioned, what is their attitude to vaccination generally? Do migrants tend to see it as something that we in Ireland provide for them and if they are staying as our guests, to a certain extent, they would go along with it, or are they resistant to it?

I have asked a mouthful of questions there and I have some more if the witnesses want to follow up later.

Vice Chairman

There are a huge number of questions there. The five minutes are supposed to be for the questions and the answers. Given we have quite a few apologies, as I said, I will be flexible but we have gone way over time. We can come back to the issues once we have got through everyone. I ask our guests to respond as quickly as possible. I call Sr. Keenan.

Sr. Breege Keenan

On the first question in regard to co-operation between the agencies, the groups that work with migrants work very well together. We have quite a number of meetings and we are involved in meetings with Government Departments. While Crosscare is based in Dublin and Wicklow, we receive calls from all around the country and, as we work with Irish people returning with their non-Irish partners, we also work outside of Ireland, if one likes. I know the Immigrant Council of Ireland has a remit for all of Ireland. In the south, our compatriots down there are Nasc in Cork, Doras Luimní and COPE in Galway.

They are the national organisations we work with. I will pass over to Mr. Neenan in order that we all have an opportunity.

Mr. Noel Neenan

The Deputy has raised very important questions, because he has touched on a number of key points. Co-operation is key because it means there is an open and dynamic conversation about the issues, blocks, gaps and positives arising as well. We are a core member of the migrant consultative forum in the Department of Social Protection, where a number of agencies, including citizens information, are represented to discuss issues around the area of social protection.

As an organisation, we provide training on the rights and entitlements of migrants for access to housing, homelessness services and social protection. We have provided training to a large number of agencies and indeed some State actors have attended that training. We have also provided that training to the regions of the citizens information service, to try to ensure that issues arising nationally are addressed and that we can bring them to the State agencies on a coherent and clear basis. Significant co-operation and co-ordination goes on to try to achieve efficiency.

With regard to attitudes and awareness in the State agencies, it is very important people act in good faith but also that officials be supported with the right knowledge, tools, infrastructure, information and protocols. That is why we are very keen for those officials to have clear pathways and protocols of understanding of migrant rights and entitlements and information from the likes of the Department of Justice through protocols. We are working with both the Department of Social Protection and the Department of Justice around that issue, because numerous complications arise.

On the one hand, we would see a decision from the Social Welfare Appeals Office saying the Department of Social Protection has no role in deciding on the right to reside of an individual that it makes an application and merely recognises it or not. On the other hand, we might see another appeals office decision saying that the officer does need to see the contents of a permission letter for a non-EEA person and asks how someone has a right to reside for the purpose of social protection. Of course, the Deputy may know, there is no such thing as a right to reside for the purposes of a social welfare payment; there is just a right to reside. These are the kinds of complications that arise where supports are needed.

Communicating those complexities and interacting with people is why interpreter services are critical. It is very difficult for the local authority and its officials because there is no infrastructure of supported communication. We have a team of interpreters who have engaged in training. We thank them, because many are volunteers, for their investment. However, we also train our own staff in how to work with an interpreter, identify the need and how to do those things properly in order that people are empowered to make informed decisions and are able to engage in the process correctly.

There is a lack of very important information and skills around interpreters and the provision of services in an accessible way. A simple example is the back to school allowance application has been digital for a number of years, unless one specifically rings the Department and asks for a form. However, one has to be able to do that and to make the application digitally in the language of the website and have a MyGovID account. These issues need to be addressed.

The Deputy asked whether this was an east coast issue. It is not. There are people in direct provision centres, members of the Roma community and many people working in industries throughout the country. It is a national issue and needs a national response. We find that knocks on to housing, so it is important that access to homeless and housing supports is supported through a proper infrastructure of knowledge, expertise and resources, of which people can avail.

It is unfortunate to think we have seen some cases in which people have had to flee their home because of racist intimidation in a local authority home. It is unfortunate that can happen. It is about community engagement and the State supporting people to engage and know the other and to support, through the migrant integration and the Traveller and Roma inclusion strategies, to support initiatives to bring people together.

When we look at migrant attitudes, people are here by policy and by Ireland recognising by its policy that migrants are welcome because they have a very positive contribution to make. Various studies, including by the International Organization for Migration, IOM, in 2015, with Nasc, and 2018 reports by the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, recognised that a very positive contribution is made and that is reflective of migrant attitudes. EU and non-EU citizens fulfil essential jobs in the labour market. They are huge contributors in that sense, as well as culturally. We just have to look at the quality of the cultural addition migrants have made to Irish society and therefore, they are very respectful of the law because they are deeply engaged in making their lives here. Society is a bell jar. There are always people at either end of the bell jar.

When people come, they bring some history with them that living in a different society can amend. The Deputy asked about vaccinations. The HSE is making very significant efforts, for example, in the Roma community and through local health workers and information, to help people to make informed decisions about vaccination. It is a big difficulty with language and literacy and the role of social media and what we-----

Vice Chairman

I must interrupt Mr. Neenan because I am conscious we need to move on to some of the others. We should have time to come back.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

I thank the witnesses for joining us today and apologise for being delayed coming into the hearing. I was speaking in the Dáil and the schedule ran late. I have read the submissions and statements and listened to some of the debate. I thank the witnesses for the insights. It is useful and valuable for us to hear directly about the experiences of migrant communities in engaging with State bodies and public services and I commend the witnesses on the work they do. I have worked with Mr. Killoran on the Immigrant Council of Ireland over many years and it has been a pleasure to work with him on many issues.

How can we, as legislators, best support those individuals and organisations which are drawn from migrant backgrounds and new communities and are keen to get politically involved? I have worked for many years with AkiDwA, which is a wonderful organisation, established by women who had originally come to Ireland from Africa and has done a great deal to change and move policies forward on a range of issues. The value and strength of AkiDwA is it is women's voices from communities and nobody is speaking for individuals, which is very important. I wonder how we can support other organisations such as that in coming forward.

There is a gendered dimension of experiences of those from new communities. From my work with AkiDwA and Mr. Killoran on the Immigrant Council of Ireland and the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, I am conscious we see particular issues arising for women, as a result of reproductive health issues and experiences around female genital mutilation, on which we have brought forward legislation. I am conscious they are particular issues and it can also be more difficult to hear voices from women from disadvantaged backgrounds and communities, including migrant communities.

My background is as a practising barrister. In the past, I represented children, unaccompanied minors who had come to Ireland with substantial needs. How can we intervene to support those who have come here unaccompanied and are, therefore, particularly vulnerable in terms of their accommodation, education and so on? What can we do about that?

I appreciate what Mr. Neenan said about the contribution migrant communities make. My own grandfather was a migrant from what was then Czechoslovakia. He came to Ireland in 1946 and re-established Waterford Glass after the Second World War. Many people from different backgrounds make considerable contributions when they come to Ireland bringing knowledge and experience. We need to celebrate that and ensure it is spoken of as positively as possible at every opportunity.

Mr. Brian Killoran

I thank Deputy Bacik and the committee. In terms of political engagement, one of the parts of our integration work down through the years has been around the political enfranchisement of migrant communities. Some of that is essentially boots on the ground, voter education and voter mobilisation when it comes to informing people about their right to vote. It is worth reflecting on the fact that we have a good system around accessing a right to vote in Ireland, particularly at local election level. It is a good system and an outlier in Europe. Even somebody who is an asylum seeker can vote in a local election. It is really important that we do that but not many prospective voters know they can vote. Voter mobilisation is part of it and that is something on which we have focused.

We have also worked a lot with political parties through the years on, for example, migrant councillor internships. Crosscare did that originally as well and we took up the idea of councillor internships a couple of years ago. Originally, that included internships with Members of the Dáil. People who are interested in becoming politically active can shadow a councillor, in the most recent iteration of the scheme, and learn about local politics, whether they are with a political party or an Independent. Those interns can shadow a local councillor over a number of months and learn all about the system. In many cases, those interns have ended up joining the relevant party themselves and some of them have run in local elections. Some have ended up being elected themselves at the end of the day.

Integration is obviously a two-way process. Part of it is opening political parties and representatives to meeting politically interested migrants half way. Schemes such as the one we run with migrant councillor internships are a good way of doing that. That scheme has been replicated in a couple of county councils across the country and run by the councils themselves, which is great. It has taken wings in and of itself.

We are conscious to work directly with, and be a resource for, political parties with regard to their thinking about the issue. Some of that is about the party structure, some of it is about asking what a political party is doing to welcome people and what more they can do. It is about identifying barriers to anyone advancing within the ranks of a political party. Some of the thinking about those issues can be done with groups such as ourselves and Crosscare. There are also a great number of migrant-led groups that are increasingly, and rightly, moving to the front and centre of the conversation around migration and integration in Ireland. We are here to help and support that process. Direct engagement with migrant-led groups is important. The Deputy mentioned AkiDwA as a good example. We are absolutely willing to do anything we can to help make contacts and build bridges and all that kind of stuff. That is massively important.

On the gender question, we have done work around gender-based violence, victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation and domestic violence work impacting upon migrant women. A gendered approach to our immigration system is a must. To date, it has been largely a one-size-fits-all approach. That can be seen, for example, in the placing of victims of human trafficking within the direct provision system in mixed gender accommodation, places that are inappropriate and unsafe for them, as victims of trafficking. The Government policy is that those women go into direct provision. That has been criticised not just by ourselves but by international bodies, down through the years. Much of our work has drawn attention to the fact that we need a gendered approach to support the victims of trafficking and the immigration system in general and the type of social supports that are built around it. In certain instances, that need is of particular prominence, such as with regard to domestic and gender-based violence. We need to do a lot of work to reach migrant women. We must interact directly with them to get their expertise and experience. We must work with civil society to try to harness that expertise and experience and have it inform policy and work, going forward.

I will briefly touch on the Deputy's last point about unaccompanied minor children. I mentioned at the start that we do work in that area, as do the likes of the Irish Refugee Council and others. We have a great level of interaction with Tusla around the immediate legal needs of the person and the care he or she gets through Tusla. We do a follow-on project around the unmet legal need of unaccompanied minor children. That can touch on everything other than their immediate legal status. It can include family reunification, citizenship applications, renewal of status and all the things that flow, especially when someone ages out and reaches the age of 18. At the moment, that is a civil society-led initiative involving ourselves and the Irish Refugee Council, supported by pro bono partners in law firms. It is an area in need of considerable development, especially in instances where people have come to the State as minors, do not have their families with them and need to be joined by their families. We must recognise that the overall integration of such people and their position within a community and in Ireland overall is better served by their having a family structure around them and being integrated as quickly as possible. I do not denigrate the work of Tusla in that regard and we have a very good relationship with it. However, there is a lot of unmet legal needs for unaccompanied minor children that we think needs considerable investment.

Vice Chairman

I am going to move on to the next speaker. We will probably have time to come back so our guests might like to make some notes and we can come back to the unanswered questions. Members can ask the questions again, if needs be. I call Deputy Ward.

Deputy Mark Ward

I thank Sr. Breege, Mr. Neenan and Mr. Killoran for their engagement with the committee today. It is always good to get such good information. I find my role as a public representative is to make it easy for people to access the services they need, if I can help with that. That was the case when I was a councillor and it is the case now, as a Deputy.

This is not the first time this committee has heard about the issue around migrants being unable to access interpreters. We have heard about it in other meetings in the past. People have contacted my office and it can be difficult to understand what is being asked of me over the phone. I should say that the level of English of those who are talking to me is a lot better than my attempts at any of their native languages. They are doing their best. I always find that if I can sit down and meet that person face to face, it is a lot easier to understand but there was a barrier to doing that during the Covid-19 restrictions, which made it more difficult. I have questions about interpreters. What barriers are stopping migrants from accessing a comprehensive service? Has there been any progress in developing professional qualifications for interpreters, such as those in Britain? I will ask a second question if I have the chance.

Sr. Breege Keenan

I thank the Deputy. We see the need to have very good interpreting as vital for any member of a migrant community who is unable to talk or express themselves through English. We find that there are a number of interpretive companies but there is absolutely no training. There is nothing worse than to have an interpreter on the phone and know they are probably standing in a shopping centre or walking down the street when one is sitting with a woman who might be the victim of domestic violence. One is trying to support her while at the same time realising that the person on the other end of the phone is walking around the street. It is imperative that we have a training course.

We linked up with somebody in Dublin City University and we have trained our volunteers and sat with them. We also must ask who supports the interpreter.

For example, if I have an interpreter for a woman who has been a victim of domestic violence and she is talking about what happened her with the interpreter explaining it, we end the phone call and the interpreter goes home. With our interpreters, we check in with them afterwards. We have a debriefing to be sure that they are okay and are not carrying home the trauma, being retraumatised by what they have heard. This has come up at many Department meetings. Yesterday I attended a meeting - Mr. Killoran was also there - with the International Protection Office at which we again talked about the quality of interpreters. It has been talked about for years but we now need action. Of course, it should be developed with the universities. For example, NUI Galway has an interpreter course for European languages such as French and Spanish but not for the languages common among migrants.

Mr. Noel Neenan

That is a really important point. Not only for interpreter services but also for information provision and rights and entitlements, the system should be able to proactively respond without the need for an applicant to intervene. That is the acid test in a sense. Should somebody need an escort - for want of a better term - to access a right or entitlement, interpretive services are critical to that. In fairness, the Department of Social Protection has it in place, but there are issues with accessibility. Yesterday I spoke to a social welfare inspector who was talking about accessibility, the time that it takes and what they need to go through to organise it. It needs to be intrinsic to the process and not something that is added on. That is the first thing and it applies where it does exist.

However, the fundamental issue is that in many cases it does not exist. It needs to exist and as Sr. Keenan said, the people using that service need to be trained to use it and need to understand the process both for the interpreter and themselves so that the process is empowering, is focused on the outcomes that are needed and spots the vulnerabilities. They are key points which will empower people to interact with the system in a fair, reasonable and transparent way that they can understand and have confidence in.

Deputy Mark Ward

Sometimes when people come in and sit down it is very complicated and it is necessary to go into it further. Sometimes the matter is easily resolved which just requires somebody to sit down and take the time to have that conversation. Sometimes it can be resolved with a phone call. I accept what the witnesses have said about that.

I accept Sr. Keenan's point that interpretation is not just about knowing the language but the skills that go with that are also vital. Before I got into this line of work, I worked in behavioural therapy dealing with people who had addiction, substance misuse and mental health issues. We had policies in place so that when I heard some difficult stuff in those conversations with people, I had a place to go and speak about that - supervision to look after myself - which is very important. During their journey to get here, some of the migrants have had very difficult and traumatic times before they reached Ireland. It is important to have that support in place.

Can the committee do anything to improve interpreter services for migrants? For example, should we contact the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science regarding the diploma course that was mentioned?

Vice Chairman

I ask our guests to be very brief in response to this matter and we can come to some other matters. One Deputy is waiting to contribute after which we will have reached the end of the speaker rotation. We can come back and explore this issue more at that point.

Mr. Noel Neenan

The Deputy made a crucial point about the interpreter service. We need to encourage all the State agencies to have it available and the officials need to be trained to use it properly.

Sr. Breege Keenan

I agree with Mr. Neenan. The universities need to be involved. If it was part of a university programme or a degree in interpreting, it might make more people interested and students who are good at languages might take it up. It needs to be done now and started for the next academic year.

Mr. Brian Killoran

While there is an immediacy to that issue because services like ours are going through it on a daily basis during the week, it is important to reflect on what the committee can do to ensure the next national migrant integration strategy comes into being very soon in 2022 and has adequate consultation but also real targets on these matters and real deliverables on things like interpretation and access to services. The lens of the national migrant integration strategy is important to consider in making sure that happens.

Vice Chairman

We will definitely come back to this issue. I also have questions on it.

Deputy Holly Cairns

I thank all the witnesses for appearing before the committee today. Their insight into the immigration system and the experience of migrants is invaluable for us. The State's approach to immigration is much more complicated and even more draconian than the average person realises. I hope that the witnesses and this committee can draw attention to those issues which I believe the Ministers and departmental officials can resolve fairly easily.

Further to Mr. Killoran's response to Deputy Bacik, I have a question for both Crosscare and the Immigrant Council of Ireland. A few weeks ago, the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland explained how aspects of our immigration system were leaving individuals, including children, vulnerable to domestic violence and coercion. The way the system is set up facilitates it. The Immigrant Council of Ireland is scheduled to have an online discussion on the issue on Thursday. The witnesses from Crosscare mentioned it in their contributions. I ask the witnesses to outline for the committee some of the concerns they have in this area.

I will ask a few questions which can be answered if there is time and, if not, a written response would be great. Sr. Keenan and Mr. Neenan mentioned that Department of Social Protection services and supports need to be sensitised to migrant vulnerabilities. I ask them to elaborate on what this would involve and the importance of the changes. Their statement had a very worrying sentence about individuals and families needing housing and homelessness supports. It stated that non-EU migrants have the additional layer of immigration residency permission that can limit their ability to access social services. I ask them to explain the implications of that and what can be done to improve conditions for migrants.

Mr. Killoran highlighted the overly bureaucratic and paper-based nature of many of the immigration processes, the weaknesses of which were emphasised during the pandemic restrictions. I ask him to elaborate on the bureaucracy involved and reforms the Department of Justice could implement to help to resolve the situation as soon as possible.

Vice Chairman

Perhaps Mr. Keenan might respond on the housing and habitual residency questions.

Mr. Noel Neenan

This is very important. The interpreter service is an intrinsic part of this so that people can communicate. In terms of the sensitivity, officials must see that treating people the same is not treating people equally. Officials need to be sensitised to the vulnerability and be open to assessment. In the migrant integration strategy, the Department committed itself to providing information rights and entitlements, particularly to migrant households presenting. In having that engagement, it is necessary to explore the issue with the person. Officials need to be supported to explore the issues and why people are there.

When they know that, they can act accordingly and link people to services they will need. There is a structural issue in supporting people in their humanity. They are officials but they are human beings dealing with other human beings and it is the Department of Social Protection. The same extends to the housing authority. It is about training and cultural awareness. Training in sensitivity to issues such as identifying the possibility of domestic violence and coercive control, and identifying vulnerable people and how they communicate with officials is absolutely critical to the quality of engagement that officialdom have and, in their own way, to be able to help people because that is why the officials are there and stay there. If that were in a nutshell, that is what I would say.

There is also the underpinning element. In terms of sensitivity, it also comes through knowledge and competency around rights of entitlement. When someone who has just lost his or her job and has particular characteristics walks into an agency, the official should understand the situation that the person is in and be aware of the kind of information that should be given to the person or the kind of pathway the person needs to know about. That is very important as well. It happens often, unfortunately, with simple things whereby people get the wrong information, wrong advice and wrong forms. That is a real problem because the person is heading in the wrong direction and he or she could be in a precarious situation. It is sensitising officials to hearing the person and the issues, and sensitising them to the pathways they need to know about and need to impart information on. That is a really important point.

In the housing side, about which Deputy Cairns asked, it is very worrying. While there is a circular provided by the Department around local authorities interacting with victims of domestic violence, one local authority pointed out to me that it is just a circular and that one does not have to help them. That is chilling. It was not said in an uncaring inhumane way; it was said from the point of view that they work within the structure. The structure needs to leave space for people to respond appropriately. That can be a problem. By way of a simple example of where this can happen in immigration, we have encountered cases of some people who may be undocumented, some of whom are covered by the latest developments, which is welcome, or who have a particular immigration permission and they have received the wrong advice from a homeless section in a local authority. They have been told that they need to go back to the Reception and Integration Agency. If they are a student, for example, that agency has no role in their case. There is confusion about what they should be doing. We were saying that when someone presents to the homeless section of a local authority, it is covered by section 2 of the Act. The definition of homelessness is clear in primary legislation. It should be applied. Officials should facilitate people to apply it in the vein of humanity with which the legislation reflects.

These are the kinds of actions we would strongly encourage. It would have the benefit that people would not fall off a cliff or be exposed to further exploitation, which is often what happens. A friend might help them fill out the forms or help them interpret. These friends are often not necessarily good actors. They are at risk of identity theft. We have seen, for example, people who have received help with their online application for a personal public services number and their identity has been stolen. These are the kinds of matters that have consequences and that can be avoided by proper deployment of services in an accessible way. Hopefully, that answers the Deputy's question.

Sr. Breege Keenan

I wish to make one comment around domestic violence. In the case of women who are a certain number of weeks in a domestic violence shelter, if they do not have an up-to-date Irish residence permit card, they cannot go on the social housing list. We have an example of a women who was in a domestic shelter and who ended up in homeless accommodation. She was told she only had three nights to stay. This is all about information and understanding. I told her that they would not throw her out with her three children. She rang me on the first and second nights. On the third day, she rang and said that she had to be out tomorrow and asked what she would do. I said that they would not throw her out. In the background, her little six-year-old were saying "Please, mammy. Please don't cry. Please don't cry." I had to reassure her. I asked her if I could I speak to her little daughter on the phone. I spent a half an hour talking to the three of them together - she has two other children - explaining that the local authority will accommodate her in longer-term homeless accommodation. That is what we are working with because people have not been told exactly what will happen. We are talking about peoples' lives. We are talking about a woman who had suffered quite a lot, as it was, and her children witnessed this. This is what we are trying to follow up. This is about legislation and the rights and entitlements that, as Mr. Neenan said, some people are not aware of. It is a matter of humanity. It is simply saying to the person that he or she will be accommodated for three nights and after that they will get him or her other accommodation to live in.

Mr. Brian Killoran

I will follow on from the points Mr. Neenan and Sr. Keenan made about domestic violence circumstances, which we concur with. There are a couple of other elements I would also like to highlight. One is that a lot of the issues that emanate in this area come from the fact that our immigration system essentially ties one person's status to another in instances of family reunification. In the vast majority of cases, the man whose immigration status is that of the "primary migrant" on a work permit or some type of immigration status, his partner joins him as a dependent spouse under stamp 3 conditions. Their right to remain in the State is contingent on their continuing relationship. When relationships break down because of domestic violence, it puts the spouse's right to remain in the State in question. This is not only an issue of a lack of clarity as regards their continued residency in the State, but it is also used as an element of control by abusive partners who say that if their spouse goes to the police or immigration agency, she will be deported and that she is only here because she is in a relationship with the partner. This is used as an element of coercion.

Organisations like ours have worked throughout the years in support of migrant women primarily, not exclusively, in domestic violence circumstances to convince them that they must get out of the situation they are in for their own safety. They can then approach the Minister at whose discretion they may be granted a status to remain in the State. Some 99% of the time that application to the Department of Justice is successful and we have to commend the Department in those circumstances. In the vast majority of cases, it issues an independent status to someone who is in a domestic violence circumstance. Generally, that information is not publicly known. One would have to dig on the Department of Justice's website to find the little information note that refers to the independent status for victims of domestic violence. It does not refer to a piece of legislation. It does not refer to a statuary instrument or an official piece of policy. It is an information note on the website. There are a significant number of missed opportunities for supporting people. They may come to an organisation such as ours and get that support and have their hand held to go through that process, but how many do not?

Let us look at the difference between those who come to our services and the number ringing the Women's Aid national helpline who are migrant women, which is a bigger number than those who are accessing our services. There is a large gap there as Deputy Cairns correctly said and I thank her for mentioning it. We ran an information session around the "We Are Here Too" campaign which is migrant women-led. It is a campaign about trying to bridge the gap between marginalised migrant women and the domestic violence services available. A lot of good work is going on in that area, but there is a great need to clarify it. We have encountered instances, as Sr. Keenan mentioned, whereby somebody goes into a community welfare officer, who is on stamp 3, has two small kids, whose partner has left having been domestically abusive, and the community welfare officer says that the person is on stamp 3 and is, therefore, not entitled to any payments and does not get anything. We have had to write letters that I would describe as taking the paint off the wall to get that person some kind of emergency support in the immediate term. That should not have to happen. It should not take the intervention of an organisation to come in kicking and screaming to get a payment for somebody. That is not to say that all community welfare officers are doing this. They are not. There is a lot of great work being done in the community as well. There is an inconsistency that is massively problematic.

I do not know if I have time to answer the second bit about bureaucracy and such issues.

I will let the Vice Chairman tell me that and not keep talking.

Vice Chairman

We have almost reached the end of the time allotted to this subject. I shall ask a few questions and then we will have another round starting with the issue of bureaucracy. We have a lot of time after that so we can be a bit more flexible.

One of the opening statements mentioned a diploma in public service interpretation that would be similar to that used in the UK. How are interpretation services handled in other European countries? Are diploma and language skill requirements on a legislative footing or how are they done? I ask as I would like to know what practical things this committee can recommend or do in this regard.

I want to discuss lesser spoken languages. For example, I needed people to translate languages that are similar to Dari and Farsi. The translators were native speakers of Dari and Farsi who had come here as migrants. The situation caused concerns because these communities are very small and people were needed to interpret something sensitive. Equally, I am conscious that if we require a university degree there are not very many universities that teach Farsi, for example. Equally, would that put a roadblock in front of migrants who are here from using their language skills as part of their integration and job seeking?

To recap, are language requirements on a legislative footing in other countries? Please also address my concerns about freezing people out.

Sr. Breege Keenan

Honestly, I do not know even though we are aware of the issue. I do know that the International Protection Office has on occasion used interpreters from overseas and other European countries before there were interpreters in Ireland. I cannot answer any further on that.

In terms of languages that are used less frequently, I really am not sure. We cannot cover all of the languages and I ask Mr. Killoran to comment.

Mr. Brian Killoran

Our experience of this is as a service provider that scrambles around for interpretation as well. We are not necessarily experts on the international best practice around interpretation but I am aware of instances. For example, a lot of the domestic violence services in Ireland use telephone-based helpline services in the UK and part of that is because they are better regulated. To what extent they are better regulated I cannot say offhand. To get over the issue of somebody, potentially, from the community knowing a family, the circumstances or knowing the individual from attending a mosque or wherever that may be, services are used that are located outside of Ireland.

The competent authorities such as the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, the Department of Justice and the Department of Education, through things like the migrant integration strategy, need to empower officials and perhaps civil society to look at this matter. Part of looking at the issue is considering international best practice. I think we are very much behind the curve in Ireland in terms of the thinking on this matter. Organisations like ourselves must firefight and struggle with this matter as much as everybody else, and are not necessarily able to suggest solutions right now.

Part of planning for and investing in migration in Ireland is looking outside ourselves at countries that have longer immigration histories than Ireland, and have gone through these issues maybe 20 years ago and developed best practice. It might be as close as the UK when it comes to things like interpretation. While that will not be perfect, it will definitely be more advanced than what we do here. The migrant integration strategy is an opportunity to do things like interpretation services properly. I mean we can get a bit of best practice and tailor the approach in Ireland.

Vice Chairman

We have reached the end of the speaking rota so if Deputies and Senators want to come back in then please raise a hand. Earlier I cut off Mr. Killoran in mid reply and he can resume now. I ask members to please raise a hand if they have a further question after that. If not then I ask our guests if they wish to expand on further points.

Mr. Brian Killoran

I will respond to a question on the immigration system asked by Deputy Cairns. There are a number of different things to the issue and not all of them are massively complicated in terms of what might need to be done. We are not necessarily talking about legislation. We are not necessarily talking about massive immigration reform writ large. A lot of it is bureaucratic and administrative. Some of that stems from the bureaucracy involved internally within the Department of Justice as regards how we administer the immigration system in Ireland. One thing that most people will not be familiar with is that a huge proportion of our immigration system is based on ministerial discretion. We have a broad framework of immigration and legislation that is the bricks and mortar of our approach in Ireland. However, a large amount of this is done through statutory instruments, policy statements and through somewhat opaque and invisible immigration procedures. The level of ministerial discretion is extremely high and guides decisions but that can lead to a large amount of inconsistency in application. One will see two people in very similar circumstances make applications yet both get different answers. I mean that on paper there would be no difference in their circumstances so there is no rationale for different decisions.

The internal guidelines within the Department of Justice around applications, and the internal sharing of data across the different sections of the Department of Justice, are really important. Again, we must ensure that somebody is not going through one application process with one part of the Department of Justice and has to do it again with the Garda, a residency permission, a renewal permission and then citizenship further down the road. A lot of that information can be streamlined to make things a lot of easier

To address the overall issue of ministerial discretion, discretion is necessary within an immigration system. One needs to have flexibility to manage the strange and unusual situations that may arise or where people do not fit necessarily within criteria. At the same time, we need much more clear guidelines and procedures to cover 80% of cases both internally and then communicated externally to applicants, service providers and other Departments. It is a big exercise to do but at the same time the initiative would have huge benefits in terms of increasing the transparency of the decision-making process. Such an initiative would also assist the decision-making process within the Department.

People do not realise that most applications do not have an appeals process. There are some appeals processes within the immigration system but a huge amount of applications do not have an appeals process. For example, if one is refused citizenship there is nowhere to appeal that decision. One can go to the back of the queue, apply for citizenship again and, hopefully, get a different answer. A lack of an appeals process is problematic because it would sort an issue in a lot of circumstances. An appeals process would sort out issues with documentation or glitches along the road. An appeals process would have a huge impact when one considers the amount of immigration cases that are in the High Court. Sometimes cases go to the High Court for judicial review because there is simply nowhere else to take them. There is no appeals process in between. I think that introducing appeals processes as a regular occurrence within the immigration system would address a lot of issues.

I shall make a final point about the overall approach. Moving towards legislation and increased transparency in terms of policies and procedures is definitely something that needs to happen in order to move away from discretion as the guiding principle of many of our immigration processes. A lot of our immigration system was set up in the early 2000s when a high emphasis was placed on rooting out fraud. A migrant needs to repeatedly explain something to us so that we can be satisfied that in the last 12 months one has not gotten into trouble with the authorities or not done X, Y or Z.

That governing principle of taking every available opportunity to root out fraud does not translate at all into massive levels of detection of fraud. There is fraud within the immigration system, like there is within any other system. However, it is minimal. That lens that we have of needing to check in with somebody every 12 months and not, for example, issuing a status as three-years long, or five-years long, needs to be challenged. People need to get longer and more secure immigration statuses and quicker routes to more secure immigration statuses as well. There is a number of things in that. These are all practical things. We are not moving continents here to do this. These are practical administrative reforms that would have a huge impact on the system.

Vice Chairman

Deputy Cairns has indicated that she would like to come in with another question.

Deputy Holly Cairns

I would like to thank the witnesses for their responses. Mr. Killoran has pretty much answered my follow-up question in what he said. I would like to touch on some of the points. Sr. Keenan spoke about when people are seeking emergency accommodation when experiencing domestic violence. I have encountered that a lot in my constituency. The way that people are met at the housing authorities shows that there is not training with how to deal with these difficult situations. I have heard of people having to prove that they are homeless. In these kinds of situations, one does not have proof of that when they have left the home. It highlights how much more difficult it is to leave, when one thinks about all of those barriers that the person is met with and has to face when he or she gets to the housing authority. There is also the situation of leaving when one’s immigration status is dependent on one's partner.

I would like to highlight that in Ireland it is a disaster that, although under the Istanbul Convention we are supposed to have one refuge space for domestic violence per 10,000 people in the country, instead, Ireland provides one space per 10,000 women. We therefore have 50% less refuge space than the bare minimum. It is horrible to think of that woman and her family who were told that they had to leave. It is unbelievable.

Mr. Killoran spoke about how it is at the Minister’s discretion in many of these situations whether people who have fled that unsafe situation can get their own immigration status separate to their partner. I was not aware of that. Like he said, there is not much awareness about it. He mentioned that it is somewhere on the Department of Justice website. The question I was going to ask is if we need to create more awareness, or does it need to not be at the Minister’s discretion? He answered the question there, in that we need to look at the aspect of how much discretion that Department has in relation to making decisions on people’s lives and the lack of consistency there. Although there are probably many things that they have discretion on deciding, but using the domestic violence situation as an example, and people’s immigration status being dependent on their partner, if that were to change, is the best change there that you can apply and get that and you are guaranteed it, if that is the situation you are in, that it is not linked to your partner? Could Mr. Killoran maybe elaborate a bit on the best way we could change this to make it more suitable?

Mr. Brian Killoran

The overarching issue is dependency as a principle within the immigration system. Under family reunification, a person comes in and is joining somebody else. However, they are dependent on that person. There has been a campaign by a group called Stamp 3 Ireland about their rights to work as dependent spouses of, for example, holders of work permits. It does not make sense to have somebody dependent on somebody else for all that time for no reason.

In other countries, for example, Canada, I believe that after 12 months of family reunification, people are issued with their own independent immigration status. I may not be 100% correct that it is Canada. However, there are international examples whereby somebody joined as a family member. While they are taken in on the basis of their relationship, they are also issued with their own independent immigration status after a very short period of time. This is so that they can contribute, so that they can go out and work and study. Forgetting domestic violence circumstances, that issue of dependency is a huge issue in and of itself. This is because we have heard of many instances from professionals within the healthcare system, within IT, within pharmaceuticals and within all these areas in which Ireland is prominent. If they go somewhere else, their spouse can get to work more quickly. If they go somewhere else, their rights to family reunification are better and their spouses’ rights are better. They will therefore leave, and they are going. They are going to other jurisdictions where their rights are better enshrined.

First, the issue of dependency is a way to tackle it in general. Second, the Department will have to retain some element of discretion for unusual circumstances that clearly do not fit criteria. At the same time, 99% of applications that we support to go in under these kinds of guidelines come back with an independent immigration status for the individual. A more solid approach to that would essentially say that unless something is really unusual in this circumstance, the Department of Justice has a policy of granting independent status to domestic violence victims. The Department would have their administrative requirements where they might lead a letter to say that they are accessing a support service. They might need a letter to say that they are accessing a domestic violence refuge. This is all the normal information that would need to be produced in these circumstances. That is understood. Once that low threshold of criteria is met, a status should be issued.

Again, the practices of the Department in this regard are good. It is just a matter of formalising them and communicating them. Part of the work we are trying to do is to have migrant women to the forefront of the conversation in dealing with and communicating with migrant women in migrant communities. They are the key to it all. There is no point in me or in the organisation saying it. Migrant women themselves should do it, for example AkiDwA, and other groups, as well as the event we will hold on Thursday are crucially important. I hope that answers the Deputy’s question.

Sr. Breege Keenan

I would like to echo what Mr. Killoran says. However, he is speaking about migrants with stamp 3 visas. On the other hand, we have family reunification members where the sponsor is a refugee. If a refugee brings in, for example, his wife and three children, under family reunification, his wife will not get a permission letter in her own right. If the relationship breaks down and she applies for social welfare, in many cases the Department of Social Protection will ask for the permission letter. She will say that she has stamp 4 visa. They will say that she has to have a reason for this stamp 4 visa and that they need the letter. However, the sponsor never gets a letter. They get a decision from family reunification services to say that they have permission to bring in the names of, for example, three children. The refugee then applies for the visa, and the visa will be the only proof the wife has. Then we, like other organisations, advocate for her to get a permission letter from family reunification services in her own right. As we said earlier about permission letters, this is where it becomes complicated. The clients do not recognise that. They think that they have permission because they have their Irish residence permit card. The stress that causes for many families is unbelievable.

I will revert to Deputy Cairns's earlier point about Ireland not having enough refuges for women. A number of the women with whom we work here in Dublin at the moment are here in Dublin, but they were on housing authority lists down the country. Because there is no accommodation for them, they are in refuges and are accessing homeless services here in Dublin. They then have to reapply to Dublin to get on Dublin housing lists, because they cannot go back to the part of the country that they came from.

Vice Chairman

I see that Deputy Cairns is eager to come back in with a follow-up question. However, I want to check if there are any questions from anyone who has not had a chance to stick their hand up yet. There does not seem to be, so Deputy Cairns may ask a question.

Deputy Holly Cairns

As we are short on time, I have another question about what we are talking about. I thank Sr. Keenan and Mr. Killoran for those responses. We were talking about the need to streamline the information between the different Departments. This would prevent people having to go through these bureaucratic hoops from constantly filling in form after form, as well as the difficulties that arise when there are language barriers and all of that. I sometimes hear concerns about when people go to one Department, they perhaps being reported to the other if they do not have any kind of a stamp. There is a need for a firewall in those situations, as well as a need to streamline the information to prevent the consistent filling out of the same form over and over again. Do the witnesses have any advice on how there could be the right balance, or how there could be a way of doing both?

Vice Chairman

Would Mr. Killoran like to respond on that?

Mr. Brian Killoran

I can, unless Sr. Keenan or Mr. Neenan would like to come in?

The issue of firewalls around information arises repeatedly in much of our work. It has arisen during the Covid-19 pandemic, where there has been much concern among undocumented people accessing the vaccine in regard to where their information would go. A good body of work was done in communicating the fact that is not an issue. No information is being shared by the health authorities with immigration officials, for example.

There is a further issue within the Garda and the Department of Justice whereby if somebody reports an incident of racism, there is a gentlemen’s agreement or a stated understanding from the Garda such that the information will not go any further. The Garda will support the person as an undocumented person to deal with the incident of racism the person is dealing with but the information will not be passed on, although that is not adequate. It is not true to say statements never permeate verbally across a force of thousands of gardaí throughout the country. While the Garda has very good intercultural and diversity strategies and is doing a lot of work internally about this, a much clearer description and articulation of firewalls, even within police services, is very important.

There are good international examples of this. When we talk about co-ordination across Departments, we always raise the example of Portugal. Portugal has a high commissioner for migration as a role underneath the Prime Minister's office, and it is his or her role to work across government departments to ensure everyone is on the same page with regard to what they should be doing about migration. We previously argued for a similar role within the Department of Taoiseach but it has never come about. The migrant integration strategy attempts to do that by bringing in other Departments, and sometimes it works and sometimes it does not, but that kind of co-ordination role across Departments needs to rest somewhere as a responsibility and needs to have teeth. It needs to be able to bring in Departments and ensure they are doing what they said they would do, that they have targets and that they are evaluated and reported on independently.

That kind of sharing of information is very important across Departments while, at the same time, ensuring the firewall is there to protect against, for example, somebody who is undocumented, and there will be those who remain undocumented even after the scheme next year if they have not qualified. They should not have anything to fear about their status being revealed to immigration. Very little is served by that happening, apart from the person staying away from a crucial service. By the very political decision, which was a good one, of introducing the regularisation scheme, as a country we are beginning to recognise the fact that undocumented migration happens. It is a fact in every country in the world, and the best way to deal with it is by getting people back into the system as quickly as possible.

We need to get our thinking around that, rooting out fraud and undocumented migration. Punishment should not be our approach anymore. We need to enfranchise people as quickly as possible in 99% of cases. That is much more important than trying to round up people and remove them from the State, which cannot happen in any event.

Mr. Noel Neenan

That is a very good point, and I echo everything Mr. Killoran said. The practical experiences of people I referred to earlier, in respect of inconsistency in decision-making, even at a senior level, show that in appeal structures there just is not clarity or cohesive thinking. Through the social welfare Acts and so on, the State seeks to identify eligibility, not to identify those we want to exclude. The purpose of a social protection system is to provide social protection, not to bar access to it. While that is the default, the atmosphere and the mood music will change completely because this is much more proactive, positive and welcoming to those who are vulnerable, that is, the very people we are trying to identify and assist.

Senator Keogan asked about the impact. The impact is that people cannot access rights and entitlements or discretionary services, such as the community welfare service, which has very wide discretion in what it can do for people. It is a fantastic component of the State infrastructure where there is very wide discretion to assist people on an exceptional and urgent basis, and that has been the saving of many a case through the actions of an individual officer. Discretion is always important. A lack of clarity can block people significantly and it is important those protocols and clarities be ironed out and put in place.

Deputy Ivana Bacik

This interaction has been very interesting and all of us appreciate our guests' inputs and contributions. It has been a very good discussion. I have one question arising from what we have been speaking about, relating to the difficulties for those who remain undocumented. All of us welcomed the Minister for Justice's announcement of the regularisation scheme, an important and positive step forward, but are we still going to see significant gaps? I have been working with my Labour Party colleagues on a born here, belong here campaign to try to get a better, more generous pathway to citizenship, specifically for children born in Ireland whose parents are not Irish citizens, an issue that will be addressed for many children by the scheme. In our guests' experience, do they foresee there will be many significant gaps? Will many people still be excluded?

Sr. Breege Keenan

The undocumented scheme is brilliant and we are really pleased it has been brought forward. The Migrant Rights Centre and the other organisations really pushed for it and we welcome it. I welcome also the fact international protection applicants who have been here for at least two years will be included. That is very good and I hope they will be given the opportunity to continue with their application for refugee status if they want to do so, which will be important. Nevertheless, there will still be people who will be outside of it. We have been working in this area for long enough to know that will be the case, for whatever reason. There is the cost that is involved and we are not fully sure about the guidelines on it. If applicants are looking for passports and other such documentation, it will be difficult for some of the people who are undocumented.

Mr. Brian Killoran

I echo what Sr. Keenan said. It is an incredibly important step for Ireland to take to have a regularisation scheme of this nature. We do not need to look far around us at political attitudes towards migration to know a person will be quite an outlier if he or she does something of this nature. I pay homage to the Justice for the Undocumented campaign, which comprises undocumented people who took the risk of leading on that work with the support of the Migrant Rights Centre and all the other organisations in that area. It is a brilliant scheme and many of the details are very generous. I refer in particular to aspects such as allowing those who have been in the asylum process for more than two years to make an application and, as Sr. Keenan said, to keep their international protection application running concurrently as well as getting a residency status, getting on with their lives and being able to be integrated in, and to contribute to, the community.

There will be issues and there will be those who do not qualify. Somebody might reach the end of the six-month period next year and have been in the State for only three years and ten months, not four years. If he or she applies as an individual and does not apply under this administrative detail, there is a question as to what happens to that person. There are also those who are stuck in administrative processes, whether relating to appeals or other decisions or because they are in circumstances whereby they are in limbo. Because of that, they may have a combination of time spent legally in the State and time spent undocumented in the State, which may or may not add up to four years, or three years if they are a family. They may not qualify either; what will happen to them?

The experience is that undocumented migration, as I said earlier, is an element of every immigration system in the world.

In the vast majority of cases, it is people who fall out of the system for various reasons, some of which we discussed today, such as relationship breakdown. The fact that we are doing it in Ireland is brilliant, but it is a once-off. It was announced by the Minister last week as a once in a lifetime regularisation scheme. While it is fantastic that we are doing it in Ireland, the fact remains that in 12 months after the scheme, undocumented migration will still be an issue for some in Ireland. However, hopefully several thousand people will be able to fix their situations through this application.

We need to build into our long-term thinking on immigration how we deal with instances where somebody has fallen out of the immigration system for whatever reason and how we get them back into it as quickly as possible so that they are not presenting at homeless services or social welfare offices with questions about their status and going around to social services in a loop, with civil society organisations accompanying them, and a long run of 12 months or longer of trying to get them back into an immigration status. Ultimately, and hopefully, they will end up back in an immigration status anyway. We need to imbed the kind of principle embodied by the regularisation scheme into our long-term thinking about migration and integration in Ireland.

Vice Chairman

I do not see any other hands up or any other follow-up questions, so I will offer our guests a brief one-minute chance to make any final points.

Sr. Breege Keenan

We have covered everything that we wish to say and thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Noel Neenan

I thank the Deputies and Senators. It was very useful for us and we are very grateful to have had this opportunity. I wish everyone a merry Christmas, even though is not even 8 December yet.

Vice Chairman

Thank you very much. Mr. Killoran, is there anything else you want to come back to or cover before we wrap up?

Mr. Brian Killoran

I was going to make a speech, but my colleagues in the other civil society organisations have not done so, so I would feel bad if I did. On behalf of my organisation, I offer our thanks to the committee for this opportunity. To briefly reiterate the overarching point that we bring as an organisation, investing in long-term integration and migration planning in Ireland is a must. It is a reality in Ireland. It is not a new thing; we are 20 years into a migration experience and we need to be planning ten and 15 years ahead and in investing in appropriate measures. It makes sense for everybody to do that. We welcome the interest of the committee in this issue and offer ourselves as a support in any way we can to try to inform that thinking with our experience as service providers.

I thank the committee very much. Happy Christmas to everyone.

Vice Chairman

I propose to publish the opening statements on the Oireachtas website. Is that agreed? Agreed. I thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee today. We look forward to further engagement with your organisations regarding the matters discussed and any other relevant matters. The meeting is adjourned until Wednesday, 8 December, when the committee will meet in private session.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.54 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 14 December 2021.