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

There are a number of issues of relevance to this matter. The people concerned are relevant, as is the language we use. The language that is used when discussing this particular issue on occasions gives the wrong insights and perceptions. At the outset, I note the Deputy and I share a view, which is that Ireland's legislation in this area must be changed. One difficulty over the years has been that if one applies for asylum and if one is unsuccessful, one can then apply for leave to remain and if one is unsuccessful, one can then make another application. Each application must be decided anew by the body dealing with that issue. Consequently, in the case of someone who has gone through the process whereby he or she made an initial application for asylum and an appeals process which was refused, the thing keeps on starting all over again. It is my hope and certainty, finally, that this year, legislation will be published to reform this entire area in the context of dealing with asylum, residence and immigration issues.

Three attempts to achieve this were made by predecessors and we had three previous Bills in this area. The reason the legislation I hope to bring forward has been delayed for so long was simply that the troika demanded that other legislation be given precedence. We had to deal with the insolvency and legal services legislation, which were important of themselves, while the Office of the Attorney General also had to deal with a broad range of Bills from other Departments. This has made it impossible for us to finalise the Bill. In that context, a substantial amount work has been done in my Department and work is under way in the Office of the Attorney General. We should have the Bill this year.

The effect of the Bill will be that, where an individual arrives in Ireland claiming asylum, a decision making process will be in place under which all issues can be determined together. A fair, objective and proper hearing will be provided, as will an appeals procedure, but it should not take two years to work one's way through the process.

I was asked the reason people are in direct provision for so long. I am concerned about this issue and the language surrounding it. The issue of conditions in direct provision also arises. I visited a number of the centres in which direct provision is being provided and spoke to many of the staff and residents in them. I have examined a substantial number of files relating to the circumstances of individuals. The overwhelming majority of individuals who have been in direct provision for more than 18 months are or have a family member challenging, through court proceedings, decisions made to refuse them asylum or the right to remain in this country. Individuals are entitled to have access to the courts and some people have succeeded in their cases because the courts have taken the view that original decisions were not appropriately made, there were procedural defects in the decisions or some issues should have been given greater attention. This results in the matter being referred back for a new decision to be made. I am not saying people should not have access to our courts. I am simply saying the overwhelming majority of people who have been in direct provision for 18 months or more are engaged in court proceedings. More than 1,000 cases are pending in the courts. One of my officials will provide the exact figure. In that context, I believe there are slightly more than 4,000 people currently in direct provision.

Many individuals who come here and claim asylum are not truly asylum seekers but economic migrants trying to exploit the asylum process. This is not only a problem in Ireland but a problem across Europe. We have a system where those who want to come to this country must apply for appropriate visas and those who want to work must obtain work permits in the context of nationals of states outside the European Union member countries. The unfortunate reality is that this creates a difficulty for genuine asylum seekers. I have very strong views about this issue and I believe we should treat those seeking asylum correctly and allow them to stay here. I have expressed those views many times in the House, prior to becoming a Minister and I continue express them, including in Europe where I make that case to our colleagues in other member states.

There is an enormous problem of people seeking to evade visa requirements, although it occurs to a far lesser extent here than in most other European states. A significant number of those who claim political asylum present information that is entirely false and present themselves as being different people from the people they are or as originating from a country that is not their home country. For example, there are cases where people claim to be from Somalia and it turns out they are from Kenya. In other cases people claim they were being tortured in some part of the Middle East at a time when we discovered they were living in London or Birmingham. There are cases of people being granted political asylum and it turns out some years earlier, when they claim citizenship, that they had sought political asylum under an assumed identity and assumed nationality. This is a major problem.

The problem is that there are a number of individuals who came here as economic migrants, failed to gain political asylum and whose cases are pending in our courts. I am not saying this applies to everyone who has brought a case and it would be wrong for me to do so. However, as a consequence, the courts have lacked the capacity to deal with speed with a large number of court cases and there are people in direct provision for an unduly lengthy period.

The language used around this issue is that all asylum seekers are being kept in direct provision. A considerable number of people who have been entirely through the system should not have sought asylum in the first place. These economic migrants are making court applications and the courts will ultimately determine the validity of the cases they are making. I must not say anything that would prejudice anyone's case. I re-emphasise that I am sure there are some people who brought court cases who will rightly be successful in those cases. That is the first problem.

No one is required to remain in direct provision. If I am an asylum seeker and have some other financial means or friends, relations or someone else who will provide me with accommodation and upkeep, I am not required to remain in direct provision. Direct provision is a system that facilitates individuals who have no housing or home and very limited resources. They and their children are fed and given a roof over their heads. It facilitates their children attending school and ensures medical treatment is available. They receive all of these supports. What we are doing is substantially better than what is being done in a number of other European countries. I am not saying we could not do better. I would like a system in which all applications, save in exceptional circumstances, were determined within a maximum of 12 months. I would like a system in which those who require these sorts of supports would not have to remain in direct provision for more than 12 months, one in which those who come here illegally, falsely claim asylum and, having been through a system in which there is full confidence and having been found not to be here lawfully and not to be asylum seekers, can be deported properly and with some speed.

It is important to address another issue because people do not understand this. We have some individuals against whom deportation orders have been made and they have been through the entire system, including the courts, but cannot be deported because the states from which they came will not receive them. That is yet another aspect of the complexity of the issue. This issue is often presented in simple black and white terms.

The objective should be to ensure we have an efficient and humane system. I wish there was something better than direct provision. However, if we were to say that people who come here claiming asylum and are in the system and have had their asylum application refused, should, by virtue of bringing court proceedings to delay the inevitable making of a deportation order or by virtue of other challenges, be automatically allowed to work after a certain period, it would drive a coach and four through our visa system. It would also result in thousands of people who are economic migrants arriving in Ireland. The State would not be able to cope with the numbers. We have domestic issues as the Deputy and I both know. I am a member of a Government that wishes we had more funding available to us to facilitate the construction of local authority housing for individuals who are living here and were born in this State.

My question is what is the alternative. Direct provision provides a financially effective way of ensuring nobody claiming asylum, whether a valid asylum seeker or an economic migrant, will be left sitting on the streets and they and their families will have a roof over their heads and food. On the issue of food, everything is being done to try to ensure, on the basis that people come from a variety of backgrounds, that ethnicity is taken into account in the type of nourishment and provisions provided.

What is the alternative within the resource capacity of the State? We are not in a position to provide local authority housing.

If it were done through private rented accommodation it would cost a great deal more, owing to the social welfare payments that would be required. There would be no certainty that the type of backup facilities that exist within the direct provision system would necessarily be available. There is oversight of the direct provision system. The moment problems were drawn to my attention during my time as Minister, we have ensured they were addressed rapidly.

This issue is not as simple as it looks. The language surrounding it gives rise to the impression that people, all of whom are genuine asylum seekers, are being kept in accommodation of the kind in question. The matter is more complex than that. Where adults or economic migrants have falsely claimed asylum, it is not their children's fault. The big issue of concern to me is the number of young children in direct provision and the length of time for which they are there. We are considering and addressing this as best we can to ensure the children will have available to them the sort of play facilities they need. For example, some of the direct provision centres I have visited employ people to provide play opportunities for children. Not all have the playgrounds I would like them to have but a number of them do and they are of benefit to the children.