Mr. Justice Bryan McMahon:

How long have I got to educate the Deputy? His first question is easily answered. There are 6,106 people in direct provision at present. People can come into the country and be an applicant for asylum and not live in the direct provision centre. People can choose to live outside, and if they have the means to live outside, they can do so. There is an undefined number outside the system. When we were doing our report in 2014, it was nearly 50:50. There were approximately 4,000 people living in direct provision and it was estimated that approximately 4,000 people were living outside. It is very hard to keep tabs on people outside direct provision. The figures are there and I am sure Mr. O'Neill has more accurate figures, because the person only has to make a legal application for asylum and the next time they are seen is at the next stage of the process, when they are called to come before a tribunal. They vanish and it may be that some of them go to England clandestinely. We do not know. There is a question mark about how many are outside direct provision. We were only asked to report on the people in direct provision and the State's obligation to them. That is why our focus is confined to that. I suspect nowadays there are fewer people living outside direct provision than there was when we did the study. There are many more people living in direct provision because there are no alternatives available.

Deputy Fitzpatrick has touched on a subject that is fairly complex, namely, the willingness of asylum seekers to work and their qualifications to do so. We met people in direct provision who were architects, economists, university lecturers as well as those who were tradespersons in their own country. The question of recognising their qualifications is a major question, and that applies not just to people seeking asylum but anyone who comes to the country and wants, for example, to practise as an architect. He or she has to show that his or her degree is equivalent. I suspect there is a resource of people who could work in the trades in country places. I am not sure if this would apply to electricians but there is work for everyone, as we are told by the economists. If one comes from a local provincial town, one hears people complaining that they cannot get people to tend to their garden, do handiwork or paint the house, which one imagines that people in a direct provision centre would have the skills to do. Somebody else on the panel might know more about their skills and how they are trying to match up the skills of those in direct provision with the needs of the local economy.

In any event, the question was not asked simply because they did not have the right to work up until recently. Now that they have the right to work, I am surprised to hear it is not publicised in direct provision centres. It is a crying shame that it is not posted in all direct provision centres that a person there is entitled to work after nine months. It should be promoted. There is a role there for voluntary, local and community groups. Many direct provision centres have friends in these sectors.