Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

The Deputy and I agree that the current system does not work well in the sense that when someone seeks to be granted political asylum, an initial decision is made as part of an appellate system which people are entitled to appeal. Then a series of further applications can be made. This draws out something that should produce a decision within a six month period. However, in most cases it can go on for many years not only because of the facility to appeal the initial decision, but because of the facility to make a series of further applications to seek permission to remain in the State.

The Deputy stated that people are in direct provision for too long and I agree. It is a product of legislation which has developed piecemeal over the years and which has not ensured that all relevant decisions on an individual who seeks to remain in the State can be made on the initial application with one appellate system. Instead, myriad approaches can be taken. Those in direct provision chose to take these approaches. In circumstances in which an application is made for asylum and where it is not granted and where the refusal is upheld on appeal, an individual is free to leave the State and go elsewhere. There are several individuals who properly and correctly apply for political asylum and are allowed to remain here. Others use other formats to seek permission to remain and they are allowed to remain as well. However, there are a substantial number of people who seek political asylum and who at the end of the process have no basis to remain in Ireland or are not allowed to remain in Ireland and in respect of whom a request is made to leave and for whom a deportation order must be made. The system at the moment does not work efficiently.

This is why we need the new legislation which will be dealt with as I informed the Deputy when we met at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. I hope to publish a new Bill rather than table 300 amendments to the old Bill. I hope we will finally get to progress this in the autumn. It will result in decisions being made more quickly and it will result in people in direct provision remaining there for a far shorter period. However, as things stand direct provision is economically the most efficient way of dealing with matters for the State.

The experience of the State in years gone by when it purchased premises to provide accommodation for asylum seekers has involved the creation of all sorts of difficulties. Expense was incurred and on occasion certain premises could not be utilised for the purpose for which they were acquired. There were difficulties in the planning process. Objections were lodged by local communities. In the context of where our legislation stands at present, the current system is the least worst alternative. In the context of some of the reviews undertaken, direct provision works as well as it could given the background difficulties that remain to be addressed and given the need for the State to ensure that expenditure is kept within reasonable limits.

See this speech in context