Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin North Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following :"recognising that:

- the current system of direct provision has existed for 14 years;

- that the Minister and the Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality, having visited several centres, both agree on the need to review the current system; and

- a key concern identified by those working in the sector is the length of time people spend in the system, with over half of residents being in the system for over four years;

welcomes the commitments in the statement of Government priorities 2014 to 2016 to:

- establish an independent working group to report to the Government on improvements with the protection process, including direct provision and supports for asylum seekers; and

- to reduce the length of time the applicant spends in the system through the establishment of a single applications procedure, to be introduced by way of a protection Bill as a matter of priority.

I genuinely welcome the motion from Deputy Thomas Pringle and the Technical Group. I appreciate his sentiments in this regard.

I welcome the opportunity to speak about the system of direct provision because, as made clear in the new statement of Government priorities 2014 to 2016, the Government is committed to addressing not only the issues arising in relation to the system of direct provision but also the issues which need to be addressed in the context of the wider protection process.

The statement of Government priorities contains a number of interconnected commitments in the area of international protection for this purpose. These include:

- the commitment to legislate to reduce the length of time an applicant spends in the system through the establishment of a single application procedure by way of a dedicated protection Bill; and

- the commitment to establish an independent working group to report to the Government on improvements in the protection process, including direct provision and supports for asylum seekers.

The single protection procedure we will put in place will ensure Ireland continues to meet its international obligations and in a way which is both efficient and fair. This reform will simplify and streamline existing arrangements and provide applicants with a final decision on their protection application in a more straightforward and timely fashion and also, as a consequence, reduce the length of time applicants spend in the direct provision system and the costs to the taxpayer. That will equally allow us to address issues which now arise in the context of the system of dispersal and direct provision.

It is no secret that I have been and continue to be a critic of the direct provision system as it currently operates. I want to see it reformed into something of which we can be proud in a civilised society that describes itself as a republic. I have described it as inhumane, intolerable and a system I refuse to stand over in its current form.

I am particularly mindful of the position of families and children. We need to ensure the facilities we have in place are capable of meeting the needs of families in circumstances where their cases are ongoing for protracted periods. We need to ensure, in particular, that the length of time people are spending in the system does not mean that children's only experience of life is of life in the direct provision system. The needs of children will be a key issue to be addressed in the reform of the system. Therefore, I want change. In particular, I want to see changes made to the system in the short term which will have a direct benefit for those residing in centres as quickly as possible. That is why I very much look forward to working with the Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, and my other colleagues in government in taking forward these commitments in my capacity as Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality.

The motion appears to acknowledge that change cannot occur overnight and I welcome this. We need to be sure the changes we make are ones we are capable of delivering on and sustaining into the future. We also need to take account of the fact that the system of direct provision does not operate in isolation from the overall protection process and that it is important that we address all relevant issues in the context of that process as a whole.

There are lessons to be learned from the circumstances in which the system of direct provision and dispersal were introduced and it is important that we do not lose sight of this. Direct provision was the public policy response to a major accommodation crisis at the time. We must be careful not to create a new one in circumstances where there are already considerable pressures in the housing market. The Government introduced the system in 1999 in response to an increase in the number of persons applying for asylum, which rose to 7,724 in that year from a figure of 424 only four years previously. That upward trend and the concentration of asylum seekers in the Dublin area meant that the accommodation services there were, understandably, unable to cope. The Reception and Integration Agency, RIA, was consequently established to put in place arrangements which would enable the accommodation needs of protection seekers arriving in the State to be met. The direct provision system has, nonetheless, succeeded in the period since in meeting the housing and other immediate needs of over 51,000 asylum seekers. No one has ever been turned away or left homeless. The difficulty is that a short-term emergency measure has become long-term policy.

The system of direct provision and dispersal has also enabled the housing, education and health needs of asylum seekers to be met in a manner which has avoided overburdening services in Dublin and other urban areas. It has in this way facilitated the mainstreaming of these services for asylum seekers, ensured they access the same services and that their children attend the same schools as their peers in the communities in which they live. We need to ensure these beneficial aspects of the system are preserved.

The system of direct provision has shown itself capable of responding in a flexible way as the number of asylum seekers arriving in the State has ebbed and flowed. The number of persons residing in direct provision accommodation peaked at 8,080 in 2005. The decline since has meant that the number of direct provision centres has fallen from over 70 to the 34 now in operation. The most recent closure took place in July 2013.

The annual budget for direct provision accommodation, at its highest, in 2008, exceeded €91 million. This year the cost will be approximately €51 million, a reduction of 40%. The number now in direct provision accommodation is approximately 4,300 which represents a reduction of 3,780 persons or 46% compared to the high point. The numbers residing in direct provision accommodation reflect, in part, the number of asylum applications being made. The number of applications had increased from the low hundreds in the early 1990s to 7,724 in 1999 when the decision to introduce the system of direct provision was made and was later to peak at 11,634 in 2002. The number of asylum applications has declined in the period since, reaching 946 last year. The numbers of asylum seekers presenting themselves can clearly have implications for processing times, as well as the nature of the accommodation that can be provided. That is why it is important that we consolidate the improvements made in recent times in processing times. The reducing numbers being accommodated in the system also offer the possibility of improving conditions for everyone.

The average length of time persons spend in the direct provision system has been increasing year on year for some time and is a particular issue of concern to the Government, as well as to me. There are, however, many reasons this is so. An analysis undertaken earlier this year revealed that approximately 50% of persons in the direct provision system had either judicial review applications pending, were the subject of deportation orders, or were seeking leave to remain in the State for non-protection reasons. A recent examination of cases in the direct provision system suggested that, in the overwhelming majority of cases in the system longer than four years, the applicants or their family members had legal proceedings pending, having exhausted all of the processes in the protection system.

I mention these facts for the purpose of setting out the context for the work we have to do, not in any way to apologise for the system as it is constituted. That also explains why we have decided to proceed by way of the establishment of an independent working group to report to the Government on improvements to the protection process as a whole, as well as the system of direct provision and supports for asylum seekers, in particular. The necessary work for the purpose of establishing the working group is well under way.

Both the Minister and I hosted a round-table consultation on 18 September. The round-table discussion brought together a wide range of organisations that have been working in the field of refugees and asylum seekers or have a particular perspective to bring to their needs. I take the opportunity to thank the Irish Refugee Council for its assistance in organising the round-table discussion. The groups represented were the Irish Refugee Council, as well as a representative of its core group of asylum seekers and refugees, AkiDwA, Cultúr, Doras Luimní, the Jesuit Refugee Service, Mayo Intercultural Action, NASC, SPIRASI, Tralee International Resource Centre, the Crosscare Migrant and Refugee Project, Dublin Aids Alliance, BeLonG To Youth, Children's Rights Alliance, FLAG, Barnardos and the Integration Centre. Representatives of the UNHCR and Amnesty also attended. Both the Minister and I benefited greatly from their insights into the operation of the direct provision system.

The main purpose of the round-table discussion was to enable the groups to outline key issues for them concerning the State's current arrangements for asylum seekers and the direct provision system. The outcome of the round-table discussion has helped to clarify the issues the working group will need to address.

The results of the round-table consultation will inform in more detail the terms of reference of the working group, which the Minister will announce shortly along with the membership of the group. The working group is to be chaired by former High Court judge and presiding officer of our citizenship ceremonies Bryan MacMahon.I expect that the membership will include representation from a wide range of interests in this area and include NGOs, advocacy groups working with children and other vulnerable people, refugees and representatives from all relevant Departments that have a role to play in providing supports and services to protection applicants. The Minister's intention is that the working group will be asked to submit a first report to the Government by the end of the year.

In advance of the round-table consultation, we had already identified a number of indicative themes with a view to guiding the discussion without limiting those contributing to those themes. These were the material needs of applicants in direct provision, including the direct provision allowance and exceptional needs payments; the needs of families and persons with special needs in direct provision, with reference to the accommodation portfolio; the arrangements for handling complaints and inspections; how linkages with local communities can be improved; support for residents when transitioning to life in the community; whether limitations should be placed on the length of time persons spend in direct provision; supports for protection applicants, including in regard to education, training, health care, social welfare entitlements and access to employment; and issues relating to the international protection determination process. The final remit of the working group will now be determined in the light of the outcome of the round-table consultation. This will ensure that all relevant issues are approached in a structured and considered way.

There is a sovereign requirement for Ireland to maintain balanced and appropriate immigration controls while at the same time ensuring that those who come to our shores to seek the protection of our State are dealt with fairly, humanely, expeditiously and in accordance with both domestic and EU law and rules. As a country and a people, we can justifiably say we are playing our part in this respect. Over the past 14 years or so, close to 40,000 immigrants who came here and utilised our protection and related processes have been allowed to remain in the State on a permanent basis. Indeed, very many of these have proceeded to become Irish citizens.

We will, of course, continue to honour our solemn international duty in the area of protection. However, we do not have limitless resources and we simply cannot operate an immigration policy which leaves us open to being targeted by those who trade in human misery, no more than we are in a position to provide for the vast number of economic migrants who seek a better life. It would be wrong for us to pretend otherwise or to offer simplistic solutions to what are truly complex and difficult issues of public policy with which governments all over Europe are struggling to grapple.

The statement of Government priorities also includes a second key commitment, which is to legislate to reduce the time an applicant spends in the system through the establishment of a single application procedure by way of a dedicated protection Bill. This is a key Government priority as it will be essential to removing structural delays, which are a feature of the existing protection system. Work on the Bill has already commenced. We are aiming to publish it in January 2015 with a view to its enactment by Easter next year. The key purpose of the Bill is to establish a single applications procedure and, as I indicated, simplify and streamline existing arrangements and provide applicants with a final decision on their protection application in a more straightforward and timely fashion. It will mean that all aspects of protection - asylum and subsidiary protection – in addition to any non-protection grounds that may prevent the Minister from deporting a person in the event of protection being refused, will be investigated and decided upon at the same time. It will, as a consequence, reduce the time that applicants spend in the direct provision system.

There has been some comment on the single procedure being of no benefit to persons already in the system. The benefit of a single procedure would not necessarily be limited to new applicants. The introduction of a single procedure for new applicants would raise the question as to what extent the new procedure could be applied to cases already in the system. The details in that regard are currently being examined in my Department.

I would like in closing to refer to some recent events. As Deputies will be aware, there are a number of ongoing protests in direct provision centres around the country. I fully respect the right of residents to protest and express their concerns about the living conditions or the protection process. At the same time, I am concerned about the impact the protests can have on children and other vulnerable persons living in the centres. Other aspects of the protests have been quite disquieting. These have included the targeting of individuals working in certain direct provision centres and the stopping of people going about their work. I know from my visits to the centres that the persons working there, in addition to those in the Reception and Integration Agency, are working on a day-to-day basis in the interests of the residents and bring real commitment to their work that often goes far beyond what is required of them. I would not like to see the good relationships that exist in most centres undermined.

Issues outside the control of the Reception and Integration Agency and local centre management, such as the time spent in centres and the right to employment, are issues that will be addressed by the working group which is being established. Direct provision, as the motion makes clear, has existed for 14 years now. It is not something that can simply be wished away or ended immediately. The Government has also to take account of the broader context of the challenging picture in regard to the public finances and the competing demands on them.

The Government is nevertheless committed to change and to bringing about real improvements to the protection process and the arrangements in place for accommodating asylum seekers. That is why we will be tasking the working group to report back to the Government within a very tight timeframe. We have form in this regard. We pledged to end the degrading practice of slopping out in Mountjoy and we did so. We pledged to close St. Patrick's Institution for Young Offenders and we have done so. We will not be found wanting in respect of direct provision. I ask the House to allow the working group the time to undertake that work and to support the Government’s counter-motion.

See this speech in context