Frances Black (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Buckley and her officials from the Department for coming in today. I take on board all of the information Ms Buckley has given us. This review has been extremely difficult. For us, it has been devastating to hear some of the direct testimonies from people living in the system. Ms Buckley said that changes have been made but there was room for improvement. I understand the Department is taking steps but I feel that is a huge understatement. This committee's role is to highlight as clearly and as fairly as possible places where we see the system is falling short of what is expected in terms of human rights and basic dignity, and to propose changes. Some of the changes relate to the system as a whole and, therefore, political decisions must be made at Government level.

I wish to focus on questions relating to the operation our asylum system and the Department's responsibilities. The first one is waiting times and delays. After the passage of the International Protection Act a commitment was given to have a nine-month limit on a first instance decision. Currently, the median waiting time is 15 months and the average is likely to be much longer. Why has the target been missed? Are more resources and staff needed to meet the target? Does the Department have a timeline for when it expects to reach the nine-month target? Similarly, there is often a long delay between the time people receive a positive decision and the final letter from the Minister. What is the reason for such a delay? What happens in the interim?

The second issue is about standards, which is critically important and repeatedly arose during the hearings. The difference in the standard and quality of facilities is astonishing and urgently needs to be addressed in the short term. I understand that the standards have been agreed and will be published soon. Can Ms Buckley give us an overview of some of the areas that will be covered? How do they differ from current practice? What kind of oversight mechanism will be put in place? Any standards will not be worth having unless they are closely monitored by an independent body that has real teeth and that conducts random inspection, which is vital. During the hearings it was suggested that the remit of the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, could be extended cover this. How will the oversight of the standards work? Will there be reporting on whether standards have been met?

The EU Reception Conditions Directive includes the need for an ongoing vulnerability assessment. I have read the replies to parliamentary questions that were tabled on this issue. It seems that what is being described is the basic medical screening that is carried out in Balseskin. That is different from a proper vulnerability assessment because it would not pick up mental health issues, an in which I am specifically interested, trauma and sexual abuse. Can Ms Buckley elaborate on the screening process and how the legal requirement for an ongoing vulnerability is met?

I have just started to explore the issue of profit. The decision to operate our asylum system on a for-profit basis is a political one. Yesterday, I looked through some of the materials on the contracts and I was quite shocked. I would like to get the Department's perspective on it. For example, Bridgestock is a company that runs two direct provision centres - Globe House in Sligo town and The Old Convent in Ballyhaunis, County Mayo. The State pays Bridgestock about €6 million per year to run the centres. Since 2000, Bridgestock has made almost €100 million. In 2011, the company became unlimited and the majority of its shares were transferred to the British Virgin Islands. That means the company's accounts are not published and it is shielded from public scrutiny. Does Ms Buckley think that a private company with the majority control exercised from the British Virgin Islands with no public transparency as to its costs and profits is conducive to a safe and respectful asylum system? It has been said also that the average amount paid to each company is €35 per asylum seeker per night. In Bridgestock's case, that provision amounted to €6 million last year. Does the Department know the profit margin enjoyed by the companies that run these centres? How much of that €35 of public money is spent assisting asylum seekers? How much of it goes to the shareholders?