Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and welcome the debate on this important issue. There are two extremes in the context of a debate on direct provision and the wider area of immigration. First is the view that there should be no immigration or inflow of people, whether immigrant workers or asylum seekers, into the State. The other view is that there should be complete freedom of movement, unfettered and unhindered by national borders. These views are both extreme and ludicrous.

It is the State's sovereign right to define its borders and regulate movement into the State. Our membership of the European Union carries with it a core freedom, the free movement of people throughout the Union. Ireland does not exist in a vacuum. It has an economy that has vacancies, some of which can only be filled by persons from abroad who are accommodated by the employment permit legislation. The jobs in question vary, but they are highly specialised and important for the economy. In an increasingly unstable world, there are human rights violations on an horrendous scale and we have a duty and obligation to assist those who seek help. All of these points impact on the direct provision system.

It is indisputable that there will always be a need for a system to process and address unplanned arrivals into the State. The current system of direct provision is beset with problems and is inadequate for many of those within it. Like others, I have raised the issue of reform of the system on several occasions - in May 2011, November 2011, October 2012, December 2013, February 2014, and most recently in June. Some of the suggestions I have made include permitting the Ombudsman to examine complaints or issues raised by residents in the system, the plans of Ministers to reform the system and the efforts to reduce by as much as possible the amount of time spent within the system.

Thankfully, the numbers in the system have been falling, but it is an unsettling fact that some people have spent years within the direct provision system. Families have been and are being reared in single rooms. Single people must share rooms with people of a completely different culture and in many cases they share no common language.

This is unacceptable. The appeals system in the area of immigration is also a problem. It needs to be streamlined and made more straightforward, but the decisions of the various adjudicating bodies also needs to be respected. We cannot have a system of endless appeals. The State has the right at the end of the day to adjudicate on behalf of citizens.

Since the restatement of Government priorities, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, and the Minister of State, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, have made several important commitments which I enthusiastically welcome. These include the establishment of a working group to report to the Government on the improvements within the protection system, including direct provision, and also to reduce the length of time that people are waiting within the system. I also welcome the fact the round-table talks have commenced, and these will set the terms of reference for the working group. NGOs have outlined a number of areas about which they have concerns, including the allowance for direct provision, the exceptional needs payment, the limitations on the length of time spent, the inspections and complaints procedure, educational issues and the dignity of people within the direct provision system.

It is worth noting that numbers have been greatly reduced but they are still too high, with over 4,500 people within the system. The number of new applicants has fallen greatly from over 2,000 in 2009 to 404 now, although, again, this is still too high. The overwhelming majority of people who have been there for a number of years are there because they have this protracted legal procedure to exhaust before a decision is made. I would welcome any commitment to reduce the time needed for this.

Obviously, the system is not perfect, although I note that it has prevented homelessness in one case. Unfortunately, as a State, we have many other challenges outside of the direct provision system, including homelessness, social housing shortages and problems with rental accommodation. There is also a larger issue that has to be looked at. Sweden is a country that is often looked at as being very liberal in regard to the whole asylum area but it has its own challenges. It was a big issue in the recent Swedish elections and it has required almost a doubling of the budget over the next four years to try to deal with this situation, given it is handling many refugees from countries such as Syria and Somalia.

I wish the Minister of State well. I commend him on what he has done so far and commend the Government on its work. I hope a solution can be found to end the indignity of people having to spend years in direct provision while their applications are being processed.

See this speech in context