Dáil debates

Wednesday, 9 October 2013

Topical Issue Debate

Asylum Seeker Accommodation

3:20 pm

Photo of Alan ShatterAlan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will deal with some of the questions that have been raised. I was asked to look at it from a Government perspective. The reason there is an inspection system in place is in order that it is properly and adequately inspected and that where problems are identified, they are addressed.

That has been the consequence of the reports. Moreover, the issues highlighted in these reports, where problems exist, have been addressed and I wish to be clear in that regard.

While the direct provision system is not ideal and I do not pretend it is, it facilitates the State in providing a roof over the heads of those seeking asylum or seeking on other grounds to be allowed to remain in the State and to so do in a manner that facilitates resources being used economically in circumstances in which the State is in great financial difficulty. There is no open-ended pot of money available to deal with and address this issue, as there is not to deal with a broad range of issues that affect citizens of the State. More than 51,000 people have been accommodated in direct provision since early 2000 and, as I noted, 4,500 people are in the system at present. Since then, no asylum seeker has been left homeless by the failure of the State to provide basic shelter or to meet basic needs. It is of course to be expected that asylum seekers anywhere, if given a choice, would prefer to have independent accommodation, a right to welfare and work and so on instead of being restricted to a system of direct provision to meet their needs. To avoid misunderstanding, it should be noted that all European Union member states operate systems for dealing with asylum seekers which, in one form or another, greatly restrict their access to welfare, work or independent housing. The system in this State is at least on a par with, and often significantly better than, that in operation in many other states. I freely admit the system has its faults but it is misleading to characterise our system of providing for asylum seekers in any way as grossly inadequate or inappropriate. Within the financial constraints within which we must operate, I emphasise it guarantees that everyone claiming to be an asylum seeker who seeks to remain in the State is provided with a roof over his or her head if he or she is not in a position to provide it him or herself.

I accept Deputy Nulty's description of some of those who seek asylum. Some come from terrible background circumstances where they are genuine asylum applicants who are entitled to be granted refugee status or are entitled to be allowed to remain in the State on humanitarian grounds. However, some are economic migrants pretending to be asylum seekers. Moreover, some arrive in the State pretending to originate from countries where there is war and strife but on investigation of their cases, it turns out they come from somewhere entirely different from the state they claimed to have been from. I share the view that asylum seekers or those seeking to remain here should not be kept in the centres for the length of time that many are kept there at present. However, the difficulty is with the current legal system in which there is a myriad of different applications that can be made. They can take a substantial time and along each of the routes, when a decision is granted with which someone disagrees - I criticise no one for doing this - he or she can make applications for judicial review in the High Court. There now are High Court lists such that regardless of whether one is a genuine asylum seeker who believes one's case is being dealt with inappropriately or is an economic migrant masquerading as an asylum seeker, everyone knows that if one applies for a judicial review, it may take one or two years before one's case is heard and one can remain in this State.

In these circumstances, it is not possible to state that after six months, people should go back into the workforce in circumstances in which more than 400,000 people are employed in this State.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.