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

This question refers to the third volume of reports of proceedings taken under the Child Care Act 1991, which was recently published by the Child Care Law Reporting Project on its website www.childlawproject.ie. The aim of the project, which was established to examine and report on child care proceedings in the courts, is to provide information to the public and to policy makers on child care proceedings and to promote debate. The project aims to report on a sample of approximately 10% of cases taken under the Child Care Act 1991.

Three of the cases reported in the third volume related to emergency care orders sought for children in asylum accommodation centres which are operated under contract with the Reception and Integration Agency, RIA, of my Department. In all such cases, it is the Health Service Executive, HSE, which makes an application to the court for an emergency care order. The RIA is not a party to the proceedings. In two of the reported cases, the issue was the mental health of the mother; in the remaining case, the issue arose from the detention of the mother.

There is no evidence, either from this project or from the HSE, that there are a disproportionate number of cases under the Child Care Act 1991 involving asylum seekers in the direct provision system relative to the population generally.

Moreover, as with the mental health cases cited in the report, centre managers and RIA's child and family services unit are often in a position where they have a better oversight of a family’s situation than would be the case if the family were residing in the wider community. Even without knowing the full details of these cases, it is clear from the reports that the child protection policy and processes within RIA and the HSE worked properly. Regarding the suggestion that families living in direct provision be allowed to live in the community, it is important to note that of the 4,344 persons living in 34 direct provision centres around the country, approximately two thirds live in family units. The direct provision system remains a necessary feature of the State's asylum and immigration system and I have no plans to end it at this time.

Since I took up office in March, 2011 the number of persons being accommodated in direct provision has fallen by over 25%.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

Nonetheless, I accept that the length of time spent in direct provision accommodation and the complexity of the asylum process are issues that need to be addressed. My resolve, therefore, is to continue to deal with the factors which lead to delays in the processing of cases in order that asylum seekers spend as little time as possible in that accommodation system. An amended Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill will be published next year which will substantially simplify and streamline the existing arrangements for asylum, subsidiary protection and leave to remain applications. This, along with new arrangements for the processing of subsidiary protection applications, should shorten the process and, thereby, the length of time which asylum seekers must spend in the direct provision system.

See this speech in context