Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Ó Ríordáin for raising this Topical Issue matter in the Dáil this afternoon. As he has said, there are 4,353 residents in 34 direct provision accommodation centres throughout the State under contract to the Reception and Integration Agency of the Department of Justice and Equality. I visited Mosney last Monday week and met the managers and residents there. I had visited other centres in Dublin previously. I assure the Deputy in the first instance of my interest in the issue he has raised today.

An interviewee on RTE's "Morning Ireland" yesterday said that these centres are not inspected and that people who reach the age of 18 are expelled from them with nothing other than a sleeping bag. I assure the House that neither statement is true. It is surprising that despite numerous responses by previous Ministers over the years to Oireachtas queries on the matter, there remains a belief that asylum accommodation centres are not subject to proper inspection. I could see when I visited Mosney that these centres are inspected. I knew it from visiting other centres as well. All centres are subject to a minimum of three unannounced inspections a year - one by an independent company, QTS, under contract to the Reception and Integration Agency, and two by officials of the agency. Moreover, since 1 October last year, details of all completed inspections are published on the agency's website, www.ria.gov.ie. This adds to the transparency of the system.

Anybody - researchers, Oireachtas Members, residents of centres, NGOs and so on - can examine these reports in detail.

Asylum accommodation centres do not exist in isolation. In fact, they are subject not only to inspections by the Reception and Integration Agency, but other State inspections. They are, for example, subject to inspection by fire officers and, in respect of food issues, to unannounced inspections by environmental health officers. RIA centres are occupied on a 24-7 basis and maintenance issues are an ongoing fact of life. Where problems are found as a result of these inspections, they are fixed. This is precisely the purpose of an inspection regime. Of course, some problems need time to fix. In regard to overcrowding, for instance, all RIA centres are subject to the requirements of the Housing Acts 1996 to 2002. Where a family increases in size such that these requirements are no longer met, alternative suitable accommodation is offered by the RIA. Some families decline such an offer, however, because they are settled, in so far as they can be, in the centres.

The RIA takes the issue of vulnerable persons in the system very seriously. All staff in direct provision centres are Garda vetted and there are robust policies in place relating to child protection, sexual harassment and violence. There is a specific unit within the RIA, the child and family services unit, which is headed up by an official seconded from the Child and Family Agency. I have spoken to this official about the importance of being very alert to the issues the Deputy raised. The individual in question has very good clinical expertise in the area of child welfare and protection. Details of the work of this unit can be found on the RIA website. As Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, I met with officials from the Department of Justice and Equality to discuss the child protection policies in place in these centres in order to ensure they were, for example, subject to Children First procedures. I was assured that this is the case. I also made recommendations that the visibility of children in direct provision should be more evident in all reports and statistics that are gathered. In addition, I wanted to make sure that children in direct provision have access to the early childhood care and education, ECCE, scheme, which they do.

I appreciate the point the Deputy is making regarding the care and welfare of children in direct provision as it is currently operated. The operation of the system is kept under review. I have acknowledged that the length of time residents have spent and are spending in direct provision is an issue that needs to be addressed. I have absolutely no desire for applicants to remain in the protection system any longer than the minimum period it takes to process their cases. Many of the issues the Deputy raised today are on our agenda. The direct provision system is not ideal, but it does facilitate the State in providing a roof over the heads of those seeking asylum, that is, those persons seeking to be allowed to remain in the State on humanitarian grounds. The system is inextricably linked to the surrounding international protection process.

A key priority for the Government in this area must be to bring forward the legislative reform aimed at establishing a single application procedure for the investigation of all grounds for protection and any other grounds presented by applicants seeking to remain in the State. The current system is too complex, with too many different elements to it and various opportunities for judicial review which invariably mean that rather than a decision being taken quickly, applicants are spending many years in the system. I met some applicants in Mosney who have been there for nine years. That is not acceptable. I would like to simplify and streamline the existing arrangements by removing the multi-layered and sequential processes and providing applicants with a final decision in a more straightforward and timely fashion. With that in mind, I am reviewing, in consultation with my officials, the work done to date on the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill, following which I will decide on how best to progress the implementation of the Government's priorities. In particular, I wish to examine whether amendments to certain sections of that Bill would allow us to expedite the establishment of a single application procedure. Such a reform would transform what has been happening for more than a decade in respect of applicants who arrive in this country.

See this speech in context