Child abuse report and direct provision debate
Senator Norris seconded the child protection amendment and then expanded on the Supreme Court ruling on direct provision, defending his long-standing Bill and criticising Sinn Féin's withdrawal of support. The Chair managed interruptions while the discussion remained focused on direct provision and the child protection amendment.
I want to second Senator Conway-Walsh's proposal. Apologies for-----
Comment on this
On behalf of Senator Boyhan, I propose that the Leader organises a debate with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Zappone, about the Shannon child abuse report.
Senator Gavan has, in a sense, stolen my clothes because I was the first person to introduce this matter into the House a number of Parliaments ago-----
Comment on this
By way of clarification, is the Senator proposing that the Minister, Deputy Zappone, comes to the House to address that matter today?
Comment on this
I have raised the question of direct provision over a long number of years. I actually prepared legislation on it, which has been introduced twice. It is on the Order Paper, so it could be moved at any time.
This decision was interesting because it was a unanimous decision of the seven-person Supreme Court. As has been stated, the case was taken by a Burmese man who has been eight years in direct provision. It has been adjourned for six months to see what the Oireachtas will do about it. This situation has been in place since 1996. There are currently 3,500 asylum seekers ready to work but who are barred from doing so.
I speak with some strength on this matter because when my Bill was introduced in the last Seanad, we had the numbers to put it through and I had the support of Sinn Féin. However, extraordinarily, at the last moment, Sinn Féin withdrew its support and the Bill collapsed. I say to Sinn Féin that it could have had this matter addressed-----
Comment on this
It could have had people working now if its members had not, in a dog in a manger fashion, removed their names. It was an area in which Sinn Féin had actually done an awful lot of work, for which I will give it credit. It had worked at the committees and had worked very hard but that is no reason for withdrawing its support. The reasons given in this House were totally specious. It said among other things that I had not made provision for work. It is on page five or six of the Bill and I pointed out that the three things it said were missing were all in the Bill.
I welcome the fact Sinn Féin is on board now but when it was crucial and when Seanad Éireann could have done something, it removed its support.