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

I welcome the report by the joint committee. Although important in itself, this will aid in the decision process to be engaged in by Government in the context of recommendations to be made in the forthcoming report of independent working group on improvements to the protection process, including direct provision and supports for asylum seekers. I understand that report will be presented to Government this month.

I thank Members of the joint committee for their diligence in going about their business in relation to this topic, in respect of which, as this House knows, I have had a long-standing interest. Quite properly, members made on the ground visits to four direct provision centres in Galway, Limerick, Meath and Dublin, and these were a cross section of the 34 asylum accommodation centres across the State in which 4,500 persons currently reside. The Deputy is correct in saying that approximately one third of those are children and approximately one third of those have been in the system for more than five years. Since my appointment as Minister of State last year, I too have visited centres in Waterford, Dublin, Sligo, Laois, Mosney, Galway, Limerick and Clare to see for myself the conditions in which these residents live. The dry facts set out in official documents and reports cannot properly convey the day-to-day realities which they face, which mostly revolve around waiting and hoping. None the less, I am glad the report also acknowledges that many owners, management and staff seek to alleviate the consequences of the direct provision system.

I also appreciate that the committee held two hearings on this matter, the first on 22 October 2014 involving asylum seekers and NGOs and the second on 1 April 2015 which I and two officials from the Department of Justice and Equality attended. At my appearance on 1 April, I made my own views on this subject clear to the committee. I cannot and will not stand over the system of direct provision.

In its report, the committee focuses on recommendations which fall within its remit but also makes recommendations on various aspects of the direct provision system for consideration by other relevant sectoral Oireachtas committees. I think this unusual approach is inevitable given the quite broad nature of the State's responsibilities in the area of international protection.

12 o’clock

While my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, and I fully support the independent working group under the chairmanship of a former High Court judge, Dr. Bryan McMahon, we do not know what recommendations will be made in its pending report. Equally, we have not sought to influence its conclusions. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume the report will address many of the issues raised in the joint committee's report. I understand the working group's report will amalgamate reports from three smaller and more focused subgroups dealing with specific themes: conditions in centres, supports for asylum seekers, and improvements in the processing of protection claims.

While I do not wish to anticipate the working group report, which is due to be presented to the Government this month, I will address the four recommendations in its report that the joint committee considers to be within its remit: that a pre-Ombudsman independent complaints system be provided for residents under the house rules of the direct provision centre; that the legal remit for the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman or Children be extended to include the direct provision system, as well as the administration of law relating to immigration and naturalisation; that responsibility for centre inspections be given to an independent body, such as HIQA; and that the Freedom of Information Acts be extended to cover the direct provision system, as well as the administration of the law relating to immigration and naturalisation.

The issue that is the subject of the first recommendation - the apparent need for a pre-Ombudsman independent complaints mechanism - came to the fore in the judgment issued by the High Court in November 2014 in the CA and TA case. Although the High Court found that the direct provision system did not breach human rights, it did find that certain aspects of the house rules dealing with guests, signing in and the lack of an independent appeals mechanism were unlawful. Although the issue was discussed at the working group, I understand it will not form part of its recommendations. Nevertheless, revised house rules which address the court's findings have been issued in the meantime. The rules now provide for the option of a final appeal to an independent complaints officer. I should record here that the judgment in the CA and TA case is under appeal.

The second recommendation concerns the extension of the legal remit for the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman for Children to include the direct provision system and the administration of law relating to immigration and naturalisation. As things stand, this is a matter of legislation which falls within the remit of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. Section 5(1)(e) of the Ombudsman Act 1980 and section 11(1)(e) of the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002 provide that neither ombudsman shall investigate any action taken by or on behalf of a person in the administration of the law relating to, inter alia, asylum. This has been interpreted to include the direct provision system. I note that the view of the current Ombudsman for Children, Dr. Niall Muldoon, as expressed to the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions on 11 March 2015, is that decisions on matters other than immigration status, including decisions on issues regarding accommodation, administration processes and internal complaints processes, are in his remit.

The first point to be made on this recommendation is that it is not intended under any circumstances that either ombudsman will serve as a first instance appellant authority in relation to day-to-day administrative complaints mechanisms. It is a requirement that a person who wishes to appeal to the Ombudsman must first try to solve the problem with the public body concerned using a formal local appeals mechanism. I have already referred to the changes in the house rules providing for a final independent complaints mechanism, even if that falls short of recourse to the Ombudsman. The current administrative processes which lead to decisions on asylum claims are substantially set out in legislation. First instance protection decisions are made by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and are subject to appeals before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Both offices are legally independent of the Minister for Justice and Equality and their decisions can be judicially reviewed by the courts. The Government would have to consider carefully how the addition of another independent body into this process would affect a system that is already complicated. Pending consideration by the Government of the report of the independent working party, there are no plans to change those legislative provisions to give either office the power to investigate asylum-related matters.

With regard to the second recommendation, and on the issue of processing, I point out that earlier this year the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, published the general scheme of an international protection Bill, the aim of which is to reduce waiting times for asylum applicants. The key provision of the Bill will be to replace the existing multilayered protection determination system with a single procedure, the aim of which will be to enable timely and efficient protection decisions. This single procedure will identify at a much earlier stage people who have no entitlement to stay in the State and can safely return to their country of origin. Further on this specific recommendation, notwithstanding the legal situation, the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, INIS, and the Reception and Integration Agency, RIA, have administrative arrangements in place with both ombudsman offices to assist and provide information on matters brought to their attention.

I will now turn to the third recommendation, which is that responsibility for centre inspections should be given to an independent body such as HIQA. While it is understandable that HIQA is cited as an example of an independent inspection body, it is not the only one. Moreover, its remit is strictly covered in legislation. It is important to point out that RIA, which is the unit in the Department of Justice and Equality responsible for the administration of the direct provision system, already engages an independent private body to carry out inspections of its centres. All centres are subject to a minimum of three unannounced inspections a year. One inspection is carried out by QTS, which is an independent company under contract to RIA, and the other two are carried out by RIA officials. All completed inspections are published on RIA's website and this adds to the transparency of the system. Researchers, Deputies, residents of centres, NGO officials and everyone else can examine these reports in detail. It has to be said that asylum accommodation centres do not exist in isolation. They are subject to RIA inspections and other State inspections. They are, for example, subject to inspection by fire officers and, in relation to food issues, to unannounced inspections by environmental health officers. This is not to say that the inspection regime cannot be improved, as it can. I await the working group findings in this regard.

The fourth recommendation relates to the freedom of information regime, which has long applied to INIS and RIA. By virtue of the Freedom of Information Act 2014, it has been extended to Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal with effect from 14 April last. The usual provisions and exemptions of the Freedom of Information Acts apply in relation to commercially sensitive matters. There are no special provisions relating to immigration-related matters. In order to be as transparent as possible, RIA currently makes available on request contract details for all contracts to the end of January each year in respect of all financial information up to the end of December two years previously. For example, at the end of January 2015, the records were updated to the end of December 2012. These records provide a context for the moneys paid for each contract, such as the length of the contract and the number of people for which services are contracted.

I believe the joint committee has performed a very useful public service with its report. That report, along with the report of the working group, will fully inform the Government in the decisions it will have to make in reforming a system which has the subject of much deserved criticism. I look forward to listening to this afternoon's Dáil debate on the report.

See this speech in context