Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I commend the Oireachtas joint committee on its work in the area, including extensive research and the manner in which it has sought to fully inform itself about a process that had been allowed to deteriorate in such a way that it necessitates immediate action. I pay tribute to all members of the committee and commend them on that work and the preparation of the report, which contains many recommendations. It is interesting in the context of this short debate that the Minister of State has set out a stall in response to the main recommendations of the report. He might elaborate slightly on them, although I know that in the absence of a final recommendation from the working group, he cannot respond in whole. He might give some indication as to his thinking and the mechanism that could be put in place that would reflect a meeting of all minds who have the best of intentions in this area. Such a mechanism should address the issue properly and effectively from now on.

In Fianna Fáil we share a number of concerns about the policy of direct provision. In particular, there is the excessively long waiting time before an asylum application is decided. Legislation should be introduced immediately to create a new single and integrated process of application for asylum. It is clear that there is a significant problem surrounding the length of time a person spends in direct provision. Approximately 46% of residents are there for three years or more, and a further 14% have been there for seven years or more. This is clearly unacceptable and the issue should be dealt with. In particular, the early years of children are impacted by unsuitable living conditions in the direct provision facilities for families.

In 2010, Fianna Fáil sought to pass the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010, which allowed for a new single and integrated process of application for protection, replacing applications for refugee status, subsidiary protection and leave to remain. This legislative provision has yet to be implemented, and I know the Minister of State has commented on the publication of the heads of a Bill relating to this earlier this year. We implore him and the Government to bring forward the relevant legislation in this area in order to effect the sort of change that we all agree is necessary.

The Department of Justice and Equality has stated that the main factor contributing to the upward trend is the length of time in the leave-determining process, including legal proceedings. Another factor in the time delay is the lack of a single application process for asylum, as I mentioned. On 25 March the Government published the heads of the new international protection Bill, whose principal purpose is the establishment of a single procedure for examination of applications for international protection or asylum in Ireland, incorporating eligibility for refugee status and eligibility for subsidiary protection status as well.

In the absence of our spokesperson in the area, one issue has come to my attention in preparing for this debate. Following publication of the heads of the Bill, Ms Sue Conlon, the chief executive of the Irish Refugee Council, resigned from the working group on the protection process, citing the publication of the heads of the Bill before the working group had had sight of or discussed the most significant changes in refugee law in Ireland for almost 20 years.

Will the Minister of State put that in context from his perspective and indicate how he believes the existing working group can have a meaningful input into any amendments that may emerge once the Bill is brought to the House?

I turn now to the Minister of State's response to the four main areas, as he saw it, of what was contained in the report. I hope I am interpreting his response appropriately, but he may correct the record if I am wrong. The first recommendation in the report refers to extending the legal remits of the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman for Children to include the direct provision system. The Minister of State appears to say that what he proposes can deal with it effectively, even if it falls short of the recommendation regarding the Ombudsman. If there are four main proposals, the Minister of State is saying that he is not prepared to accede to the first one but that what he is proposing can have the desired effect despite the fact that it falls short of what is sought in the report.

The second recommendation refers to the administration of the law relating to immigration and naturalisation. The Minister of State has said that while the working group continues its deliberations it would not be correct for him to respond to this request until such time as its work is complete. I take his response in good faith. It might be the right response. Does he have any indication as to when the working group will report and what does he propose to do thereafter? Might he amend the heads based on the suggestions that emanate from that source?

The third recommendation relates to the inspections. The committee saw fit to recommend that HIQA should meet the need in that regard. The Minister of State says that he believes the existing mechanism used for inspections should remain in place. He believes its remit, reporting mechanisms, recommendations and the scrutiny of those recommendations are sufficient for his Department to have full jurisdiction and he is happy that it is doing its duty. The committee recommends going beyond that by using an independent authority, but the Minister of State does not appear to be prepared to accept the recommendation.

The last one dealt with the freedom of information issue. Again, the Minister of State is happy that the existing mechanisms and facilities within the Department for information to flow are sufficient and do not require further recommendations in this area. The committee is at variance with that, so perhaps the Minister of State would elaborate on the issue.

It is incumbent on the Minister of State to broaden his response and to give an indication as to when the working group will report. That having been done, is there a mechanism through which the Minister of State could bring together all the parties and stakeholders, all of whom appear to have the same objective, to ensure there is all-party unity on this issue and to ensure the legislation is informed, correct and appropriate to address the humanitarian issue that must be addressed as soon as possible for those concerned?

See this speech in context