Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Thomas Pringle for framing and introducing the motion. The Technical Group has a rota for Private Members' business and there is always a long list of issues Deputies would like to discuss. Deputy Pringle was particularly determined that the House would debate the issue of direct provision.

All Deputies will remember the night we had survivors of the Magdalen laundries in the Gallery. It was an unusual occasion because we stood up and applauded these women for surviving what the State did to them. The State also has survivors of industrial schools and mother and baby homes. It seems that those who are in the wrong category at a given time in this State must survive. Many of us have read about the views that prevailed in this country when certain sets of circumstances were allowed to persist. It has been horrifying to learn of some of the values that more or less shaped the policies which resulted in a hidden Ireland in which we sought to hide things away. In many ways, asylum seekers in the direct provision system have also been hidden away as it is only relatively recently that they started to become vocal. People in the direct provision system should not have to survive the State.

Approximately 70 million people claim Irish ancestry. Ireland has not failed in terms of distributing its population to other countries. Many Irish people were not treated well abroad. The way in which Irish people were treated in London and elsewhere in the 1950s and 1960s horrified us. We must ask if what we are doing today is any better.

Direct provision was introduced in 2000 by a Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government as a short-term solution to the changing profile of migration. It was intended to last for perhaps six months. No one anticipated that people would live in direct provision for up to 14 year or that large numbers of children would spend virtually their entire childhoods in these arrangements. We need to visualise what this means for such children. They will not have a normal home or family life and their parents will not have any prospect of securing employment. Ireland and Lithuania are the only countries in the European Union which deny asylum seekers all opportunities to work. The current system essentially steals childhood opportunities from the children of asylum seekers.

Deputy Healy referred to children integrating in the community by participating in sport and so forth. Such integration is difficult to achieve when families receive €9.60 per week for each child. Participation requires charity from the communities in which direct provision centres are hosted. While there is generally good will among such communities, such charity should not be required. We must dismantle the current arrangement which is unacceptable, particularly in the 21st century.

Ireland has a proud record on overseas aid. Even in these tough times, we continue to support some of the most vulnerable communities in the world. It is odd that we are concerned about incurring reputational damage on money markets and so forth, yet our treatment of those seeking asylum is placing at risk the proud record we have built up on overseas aid. Many asylum seekers come here having experienced war and direct violence and it is no longer safe for them to return home. Those who have fled often find it most difficult to produce paperwork because they had to flee in difficult circumstances or at short notice. This makes it difficult for them to corroborate their case, as they are entitled to do.

The rate of acceptance of asylum applications in Ireland is among the lowest in the European Union. I understand the EU average is 12% compared to 5% here. This issue needs to be examined to ensure we do not return people to countries where their lives will be at risk.

The total cost of direct provision fell from €86 million in 2008 to €65 million in 2013. This is a substantial cost for a highly unsatisfactory arrangement. As Deputies are aware, adults in the direct provision system are paid €19.10 per week, while children receive €9.60 per week. We must take account of school, medical and transport costs for children. It is dreadful that people have been placed in a position in which some resort to prostitution.

There is ample evidence that many direct provision centres are not fit for human habitation. Accommodation in some of them is substandard, with some people living in a single room, heating systems are inefficient and spaces are cramped. The situation is reminiscent of the Dublin tenements. It is not extreme to compare the thinking behind the direct provision system with the view taken when the workhouses were established, in other words, they should be made extremely unattractive in the hope that nobody will enter them. That is the type of thinking involved. It is unacceptable that the system was designed in this manner.

I accept what previous speakers said in respect of the Minister of State's bona fides in this area. He will, I am sure, accept that the current system of inspections is inadequate. I hope he will secure the support of both parties in government to take immediate action on the direct provision system. Independent, non-departmental inspections similar to those carried out by the Health Information and Quality Authority must be allowed. The Ombudsman for Children should be given a role in respect of children in direct provision as I believe that office would produce highly critical reports on the system on the basis of the stories and complaints made about it.

Asylum applications must also be processed quicker. If this requires a relaxation in the recruitment embargo, so be it because we must bring closure to asylum applicants and ensure they are given a fair and speedy decision on their cases.

I echo Deputy Healy's view that the House should not divide on the motion. Deputies should be able to find sufficient common ground to enable us to address the issue of direct provision. While the problem affects only a small number of people, the impact on them is very adverse. I call on the Government to rethink its amendment and instead accept this reasonable motion.

See this speech in context