Ms Sue Conlan:

On the question of whether there is one country we could look to, unfortunately there is not but there are models of good practice that we can learn from. We are in a situation where we have direct provision and emergency reception and orientation centres but we have to move, if the will is there, to a different model. There is a link on the electronic version of our submission to the 2013 document to which we referred. That document takes examples from different countries. It suggests, for example, what could be part of the system in the context of the vulnerability of victims of torture, people who have special medical needs or for people coming from certain countries. There are different models in operation.

The Germans took in 1 million refugees last year and employed 8,000 German language teachers because they recognised that language was key to integration. This links to the point Deputy Harty made about integration in the emergency reception and orientation centres. In Monasterevin, for example, the Department of Justice and Equality has contracted the Kildare Volunteer Association to assist with integration. However, it can add another barrier when others want to be involved, if it is being - at its crudest - policed in that way. Integration services do exist but not for the direct provision centres. That said, the language support that was needed in Monasterevin and other places has not been provided. Of course, it is an issue of resources. I know that those involved in education in Monasterevin met before the centre for resettled refugees opened and asked for extra support for children who do not speak English and extra language teachers so that they could engage with the parents. I believe an interpreter is visiting once a week but that is not sufficient.

Deputy Harty asked whether people are classed as being homeless when they are in direct provision. They are not but they can be classified thus after they leave direct provision and we know of some people in that situation. One of the big problems with direct provision is that there is no statutory framework for it. We have just passed the first major legislation on refugees in almost 20 years, namely the International Protection Act 2015 but there is no reference to the reception, accommodation and support of asylum seekers and refugees in that legislation. So we are still working on an administrative basis, which on one level means that making changes is a little easier but it also means a lack of oversight by elected representatives to the extent that one might expect if there was a statutory basis. Direct provision falls outside everything.

I am conscious that I am answering all of the questions and invite Rory to butt in.