Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

A point I should make on the right to be forgotten is that in some contexts, people have no right to be forgotten. I was talking specifically about the issues raised by the Chairman. Everyone knows about young people in this context and whatever about the present day, in the early days of the web some older people certainly put up all sorts of unwise stuff that they thought they were communicating to one friend and which they did not expect to go viral or global and appear all over the world. While a lot of it is innocent, it could have an impact on their reputation. However, there is no right to be forgotten for some. No one suggests, for example, that there is such a right for an individual who has been rightly reported on websites or social media as having been convicted of serious criminal offences such as serious sexual offences. Similarly, if it is reported that a lawyer or a doctor has been struck off and this truly has happened, no one is suggesting there is a right to be forgotten in that regard. There are issues in this regard that add to it.

My colleague will understand I cannot go into the detail of legal proceedings before the courts. A court case, with which I am very familiar, is being taken that raises a number of issues regarding those seeking asylum or a right to remain and the direct provision system. That case is before the High Court and ultimately I assume it will be heard and a judgment delivered. I will be obliged to consider the judgment that is delivered and its implications. However, it is fair to make a number of points. While I will be corrected if I am wrong, the number in the direct provision system is approximately 4,500. I can provide a note for the Deputy giving the precise number. One reason people are in direct provision accommodation for so long is we have individuals who come here seeking asylum. They are denied asylum after they have gone through the initial and appeal processes. They then apply for leave to remain, which is an entirely separate application. They may then apply to stay on other humanitarian grounds and during the course of all the different stages of the process, they bring judicial reviews challenging the original decisions made. As a result, one may have a judicial review challenging the refusal of asylum and then if a person is not granted leave to remain, one may have a judicial review challenging this. There are hundreds of judicial review cases pending before the courts. In many cases, ultimately, the judicial reviews will not be successful, but they involve individuals who, I am afraid, in reality have come here not as genuine political refugees but as economic migrants. I understand this and do not wish to be taken as criticising anyone for bringing a court application. They are doing what they can to challenge the system to facilitate their remaining in Ireland.

Moreover, I am not saying every single person in direct provision accommodation is in that position because there are people who may only have arrived in the past 12 to 18 months and whose cases are being heard, dealt with and addressed. However, a proportion are in that position. Nevertheless, they are entitled to have their legal rights respected. They are entitled to make whatever court applications are required. However, it means that they are in direct provision accommodation for too long and we do not have an alternative because if they simply were allowed to go out into the general community and obtain employment after a short time, it would result in thousands of individuals who are economic migrants and not really individuals properly seeking asylum coming to Ireland. In circumstances in which more than 400,000 people are unemployed, the Government cannot allow its immigration and visa rules to be abused in that way. I do not want this to be taken that I am accusing anyone in direct provision accommodation as abusing anything. I am simply stating Ireland has rules and regulations with which people must comply. This is the reason many are in direct provision accommodation for so long.

There is a dysfunction in the legislation in this area. As all Deputies on all sides of the House are aware, I am anxious to get on with the enactment of the new legislation which will allow all applications required, be they for asylum, leave to remain or any other application that could result in an individual being entitled to stay in Ireland, to be heard in a single procedure instead of having a procedure that goes on for years. I am anxious to have legislation and a procedure that will deal with issues in a legal manner and that will both protect the rights of those making such applications and curtail unnecessary judicial review applications. That legislation is being delayed simply because of the burden on the Attorney General's office in furthering other legislation prioritised by the troika. I hope to see the legislation by 2014; I hope it will be enacted and that it will tackle a lot of the problems in this area.

As for how Ireland's direct provision system compares with those in other countries, the accommodation provided compares very well with what happens in quite a number of other European Union countries. I am sure there are some member states that do better than Ireland and have a different system, but certainly, in the context of providing a roof over people's heads, providing food and clothing, education for the children and health and medical supports, we provide all of these. I do not suggest it is an ideal system within which I would recommend anyone live. I am stating that in the context of the State providing this system, it is being done in accordance with meeting the obligations imposed on us under the United Nations convention. I also must wait and see what perspectives the courts might take in the context of the case pending and should an issue arise from these court proceedings that must be addressed, I will, of course, address it.