Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 68 and 69 together.

I am satisfied that the system of direct provision system and dispersal, which was established in 1999, is in compliance with human rights obligations placed on the State by domestic and international law. I do not believe an audit as suggested in the question is warranted.

Over the years, the direct provision system has been open to scrutiny by many international bodies. Centres have been visited by various UN bodies, including the UNHCR, the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner and, in recent weeks, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance of the Council of Europe. Further, as Members know, on 6 October 2011 in Geneva, I appeared before the UN Human Rights Committee in connection with its scrutiny of Ireland under the universal periodic review, UPR, process. No recommendation was made in regard to the direct provision system in the committee's subsequent UPR report on Ireland.

All accommodation centres under contract to the Reception and Integration Agency, RIA, of my Department are obliged to ensure that their premises comply with and operate in accordance with all relevant statutory requirements of local authorities in regard to planning, building, by-laws, bedroom capacity, food, food hygiene, water supply, sewage disposal, fire precautions and general safety. The system of direct provision and dispersal is one of the central features of the State's asylum system. I am satisfied that the treatment of asylum seekers in this country is at least on a par with any other country and that the direct provision system delivers a high standard of service and value for money to the taxpayer through co-ordinated service delivery to asylum seekers.

A comprehensive review on the operation of the asylum seeker accommodation programme was carried out, and the subsequent report, "Value for Money and Policy Review - Asylum Seeker Accommodation Programme", was published in May 2010. The report considered the following alternatives to the existing direct provision structures: allow asylum seekers to claim social welfare and rent supplement; provide self-catering accommodation; and local authority housing. The review found that these options would be significantly more expensive than direct provision and concluded that using direct provision has proven to be the correct choice in providing for the accommodation needs of asylum seekers. The report is available on the RIA's website, www.ria.gov.ie, and on my Department's website, www.justice.ie. Copies are also available in the Oireachtas Library.

The report found that the primary objective of providing accommodation and ancillary services to asylum seekers has been met since the inception of the direct provision system but went on to make a number of recommendations for greater efficiency. These recommendations included a reduction of operational spare capacity from 15% to less than 10%, the introduction of a mix of "contracts for capacity" and "contracts for availability and occupancy", as well as a "more open" tendering system.

The RIA has reported to me that it has made considerable progress on reducing operational spare capacity in line with the recommendations in the value for money report and, currently, the overall occupancy rate is 89.06%. In the area of the contracts mix, the RIA reports that it is systematically implementing this recommendation when contracts arise and where it is appropriate to do so. Currently, eight out of the 38 existing centres operate on more flexible contracts that achieve the objective of the recommendation.

The RIA is currently in the final stages of an open EU tender competition for the management of the seven State-owned RIA accommodation centres in the county. When this is completed, work will begin on the preparation of a "more open" tender competition for the commercially-owned and operated centres in the RIA portfolio.

See this speech in context