Brian Stanley urges faster asylum processing, criticises reunification rules

Without a doubt, the system that we have had administered to date has not been fit for purpose and there have been a number of problems outlined here about that. The delays in the system have not been fair to anybody, particularly genuine and successful applicants. We need to be able to deal with a situation where people are freeing more persecution or famine a lot quicker and we need to be able to help those people. The faster processing time that has been set out, if that happens I welcome it, 12 weeks on the second appeal. I think that it will benefit successful applicants. Unsuccessful ones obviously will have to leave. The current system is too slow and way too slow. There are huge examples of that where people are working years within the system. The family reunification implications in the bill, Minister, are cruel and are excessive. We have to recognise the fact that people are separated from their children. Mothers, fathers are separated from their children and particularly immediate families. They make this appeal to you that you need to go back on that and not too sure where they came from or where they asked them from to put in that three-year clause. We have to be fair about this, that you have people, that you have people here who may be working here in Ireland, family reunification, where their children are separated from their children, they are separated from their partners, wives, husbands or whatever else. That is a cluel system. Imagine any of us being exposed to that. I don't think that is fair. It would appeal to you to change that and to make that fairer. That would be the big point to make today. Particularly for immediate family. Just on the return and departure, and I want a fair system. I want a fair system. A fair, efficient and rules-based system. If something isn't rules-based, it doesn't work. I don't think that is fair. If something isn't rules-based, it doesn't work. I don't think that is fair. I don't think that is a cluel system. Imagine any of us being exposed to that. Imagine any of us being exposed to that. I don't think that is fair. It would appeal to you to change that and to make that fairer. That would be the big point to make today, particularly for immediate family. Just on the return and departure, and I want a fair system. A fair, efficient and rules-based system. If something isn't rules-based, it doesn't work. I don't have a problem with the rules being implemented once they are done in a fair and proper manner. The return and departure of unsuccessful applicants, that is not verified. At the Public Accounts Committee two years ago, I asked the Secretary-General of the Department what happened when somebody failed and failed all appeals process, including through the Court. What they told me was they sent a letter to the last known address. I think, to the last known address, how do you verify what is going to happen there? These people are living in rented accommodation a lot of time, so a lot of us are temporary by nature. They may have moved on. So there needs to be verification. Where somebody fails, where somebody is successful, we have to make sure that we look after them and they are treated properly. But where somebody fails and fails the system and fails the appeals, we have to be able to verify. And less than half of those over the last three years that failed, we can verify that left the state. That is not a system that is working, and that is not a system that is fit for purpose. And you can't look after the genuine ones if you want to have a system that works like that, because the resources aren't there to cater for those ones. And they are not being targeted for help and supports that need. Those convicted of serious crime, I do not have a problem with that. People who are convicted of serious crime, the fact that the right to stay can be terminated, I think that has to be said. If we are being honest with ourselves, I do not particularly, I think that is something that has to be accepted. The issue of unaccompanied minors, and we have to be careful with this, because children who are coming from countries that are dangerous, or after fleeing a dangerous situation, we must make sure that we are cared for. However, my understanding is that a lot of these are being brought to the front door of Tuslae, and left at the front door of Tuslae, for Tuslae to look after. And Tuslae have to try and arrange bed and breakfast, and have to supervise this. Now think about this for a minute, and trying to work out this. This is a situation that has been, unless there is a change recently, that is what was happening. And that is not acceptable. We have to have a better way of dealing with that. And if somebody, if an unaccompanied child or minor arise from a safe country, well, the safe country needs to be contacted to say, we have a child from your country here, we need to, if it is a safe country, they need to be safely returned, and put into the hands safely of safe authorities. If they are from a country where there is a risk, any risk of war, persecution or famine, or harm coming to that child or exploitation, they should not be returned. Let me be clear about that. Just on the issue of the IPAS centres. The daily report is now gathering dust a good few years. And that recommended, we know how it recommended, large centres to be owned and run by the State, controlled by the State. And that hasn't happened. There is money being made, and some people have got very wealthy on the back of this, rampant profiteering. And you have all sorts, if we are honest about it, you know, there are all sorts of chancellors that have made money on the back of that, and made huge money on the back of it, and have got very well off over a short period of time. So we need to move to those facilities that were recommended in the day report. As far as I know, the only one we have made progress with is the City West. And I welcome that, right? In relation to England, Scotland and Wales, those three foreign countries, we have to recognise the fact that they are not in the European Union, but they are, we have a common travel area with them. They are outside of the EU, so this EU agreement means nothing. And as the previous speaker said, if you have an extremely right-wing government in England, which is highly possible in the form of Mr Farage and his pals, we could wind up in a very difficult situation here. So we do need to have, we do need to reach agreements, binding agreements with Britain as regards what happens, because the vast majority, and this is accepted now, the vast majority do come over the artificial border on this island. And that's the fact that we can't ignore. I know it's a difficult one to deal with, but deal with it has to be dealt with by the Department of Foreign Affairs. And while there is a friendly or, you know, reasonable enough government, it may be criticised in other ways, in Britain, we need to be doing it while there is a Labour government there, because, my God, if there is a reform party elected into government there, it will change it. So we need, you know, we need to help people who are successful applicants and people who have a reasonable case to put forward. Those that obviously can't stay. We need to help people to integrate with education, training and work. We need a fair, efficient and rules-based system. But I appeal to you to go back to the family reunification. That is a cruel proposal and it needs to be revised, Minister. Mr. Deputy Minister.