Ms Sue Conlan:

That is no problem. I had not intended to identify anyone.

As members are aware, the allowances for adults and children have not changed since April 2000 when the system was introduced. The origin of the allowances is the e-mail to which I referred in which the principal officer in question states that, having considered the matter, he had concluded that "payments to asylum seekers in full board or under direct provision" should be made at the following levels, £15 per week for adults and £7.50 per week for children. When Ireland entered the eurozone, these rates were converted to €19.10 and €9.60, respectively. It is clear, therefore, that the allowances were determined not by a Government decision that was subject to Oireachtas oversight but by a senior civil servant in a Department. As I stated, the then Government did not make a decision providing that direct provision should be institutionalised living. The fundamental flaw in the system is the lack of parliamentary oversight and Government accountability for the way in which the direct provision system has been allowed to develop.

I will address the issue of inspections. The various centres, of which there are 34 located in 16 counties, are inspected by the Reception and Integration Agency and a private company, QTS, about which we know virtually nothing. While I have not been able to find any information on the company, from looking at the two gentlemen opposite, it seems to be based in Galway. Perhaps they have been able to find out more about it than we have.

A number of concerns arise about the current inspections regime, the first of which relates to its remit. While the physical environment of the centres is inspected, no assessment is made of the suitability of accommodation, for example, whether dormitory style accommodation is appropriate or whether families are living in overcrowded conditions contrary to housing law. The remit of the inspections regime is, therefore, limited. In addition, it does not include a requirement to speak to residents in the direct provision system, certainly not in confidence. Many residents will not have confidence to speak in front of management because of the implications of being seen to be critical of an aspect of the system or a particular centre. The examination of the physical environment cannot address the reality of the experience of those who live within it.

We also know that food stored off-site cannot be part of the inspection. For example, food for use in Millstreet, County Cork has been stored off-site in the past, which has meant that inspectors entering the facility cannot see the food, some of which is out of date. Furthermore, some of the food provided for residents is labelled in a language that the inspectors cannot understand. For this reason, they are unable to verify if it is appropriate or determine if it is out of date. We have heard about formula milk being provided for babies that is labelled in Polish only. As a result, new mothers have not been able to ascertain how to use the product, for example, what quantities they need to use.

As I indicated, limited information is available on QTS, for example, on how the company secured its contract or its suitability to inspect accommodation that is generally for a varied and diverse community whose members can be exceptionally vulnerable and include victims of torture and children.

Another issues that arises is the level of prior knowledge of inspections enjoyed by management and staff at direct provision centres. While I am not suggesting they have prior knowledge of all inspections, it is clear from speaking to residents of direct provision centres that they know something is afoot when work is done on the physical environment. For example, when a building is given a lick of paint or the place is tidied up, they know a visit by a Minister or other politician is imminent or an inspection is about to take place. This makes it impossible for any assessment of the centre to be accurate. We recommend that a body such as the Health Information and Quality Authority take over inspections and that their remit be extended to cover the suitability of the centres, taking into account the particular vulnerabilities of residents.

The remit of inspections should include a requirement to speak in confidence to residents about matters, including so-called convenience changes that occur before a visit. Impromptu inspections should be carried out at a time when children are present because children of school age are invariably absent from centres when inspections take place, thus minimising the chances of an accurate assessment being made of accommodation and its suitability for them.