Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

First, I acknowledge the genuine personal commitment of the Minister of State to equality and how he applies it to his work. In respect of the initial speech, I appreciate that the Department would want to respond to a number of the recommendations in the report and give its perspective. This is, of course, its right. The responses show disputes between the interpretation of current legislation between the Department of Justice and Equality and the Ombudsman. The reason the committee undertook this report is the fact that one of our key responsibilities is to work with the Ombudsman to look at areas of concern. The previous Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, who is now the European Ombudsman, repeatedly raised concerns about the failure to extend her jurisdiction to include the direct provision centres. The current Ombudsman, Peter Tyndall, outlined those concerns and raised them with the committee at a number of hearings.

As part of its work, the committee also met with the Ombudsman for Children who also raised concerns about oversight. This was why we undertook the report. I note that following our recommendations, press statements were issued by both offices. The Ombudsman referred to the unambiguous independent oversight of that system, which is the key point. He used the word "clarification". I will read into the record the comments of the Ombudsman for Children, Dr. Niall Muldoon, because they are even more important. In response to our report, he said:

Every child in Ireland, regardless of their status, deserves the same protection with the same access to an independent complaints mechanism. One third of the 4,360 people currently residing in the Direct Provision System in Ireland are children (i.e. 1,453) and these children are being clearly discriminated against by failure to have any access to such a complaints process.

He went on to say:

The long-standing position of my Office is that the current exclusion to the investigatory remit of the Office in relation to the administration of the law regarding asylum and immigration relates only to decisions on status; my Office believes everything else - including issues regarding accommodation, administration processes and internal complaint handling - are in remit. However, the Department of Justice and Equality does not share this understanding. We have continually recommended that the Oireachtas put the matter beyond doubt and provide clear, unambiguous access for protection applicants to my Office.

He concluded with the following:

My Office aims to achieve systemic change through its investigatory work by tackling the root causes of the complaints we receive. Following this morning's recommendations by the Dáil PSOP Committee and the upcoming publication of the Report from the Working Group on Direct Provision there is now an opportunity to clarify the remit of the OCO so that my Office can fully investigate complaints related to the Direct Provision System in Ireland and by doing so, ensure that Ireland is on par with international best practice.

I do not think the working group will adjudicate but it is important to engage with Department officials, possibly meet the two ombudsmen to see where they believe there is ambiguity and a lack of clarity and recommend that the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform legislates for that. I know both offices are respected by these Houses, are independent and have the respect and trust of the citizenry.

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission's recommendations are as good a contribution, if not better, than what we have done. The commission, which is a body that is independent and respected by these Houses, pointed that the ombudsmen do not have appropriate oversight of the system. I welcome the fact that there will be change to the pre-Ombudsman complaints system within the House rules. There is a dispute concerning whether a complaint should go to that independent body before it goes to the Ombudsman. This is generally the case. The committee always says that the citizen should go through the complaints system available to them, regardless of whether it is the HSE or the council, to demonstrate that he or she utilised that system to try to get the concern addressed. It then goes to the Ombudsman when he or she has exhausted this route. This is known to be the case. The issue is whether an appropriate, respected system that is understood to be independent exists. Is information provided to residents in these centres? Is the Ombudsman advertised in all of these centres as a recourse if people have exhausted other avenues? Will there be posters with contact details for the independent complaints procedure? Can we make it completely accessible in all of these centres? They all have a central desk with information posters and residents' representative groups so it would be important that they are informed of their rights once the Ombudsman's role is clarified and strengthened in this regard.

The next point relates to HIQA. I note that the Reception and Integration Agency talks about an independent private body called QTS. That is not really good enough. It notes environmental matters and fire safety as well but there should really be a range of statutory agencies that can exercise oversight and inspect the centres. It has put in place an arrangement relating to an independent private company. I do not think the public would accept that for public services. This is why we have independent ombudsmen or inspection agencies. HIQA is a robust organisation. The matter needs to be looked at again. I will be challenging the Reception and Integration Agency and the Department about whether it is really appropriate for a private company to operate an inspection system rather than for it to be dealt with clearly through legislation and a robust statutory agency with a clear set of established standards. This depends on whether the system continues.

The response from Department officials that was incorporated in the Minister of State's speech is that freedom of information is pretty much covered already. The usual exclusionary provisions apply in respect of commercially sensitive matters. The Ombudsman, who is the freedom of information commissioner, clearly interprets that there is a need for him to cover all aspects of the system. For example, are the private companies which run these centres subject to freedom of information? They are being given public money to run these centres.

1 o’clock

Those who run the centres have been subjected to robust criticism but the committee found those who own and manage the centres we visited to be open, frank and concerned about the welfare of residents. We all agree that the system is not fit for purpose. The people who live in these centres are aggrieved and distressed, and that naturally leads to conflict. Anybody who deals with this cohort of people must manage conflict. It would be unfair if I did not acknowledge that the owners and managers of the centres we visited fully co-operated with the committee, answered all of our questions and provided us with full and open access. They also outlined their perspectives on these matters, which reflected their concern for the welfare of residents. The problem is the system rather the people who manage the centres, and that is what we need to reform.

I acknowledge that the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, has a genuine passion for equality and addressing the challenges that remain across the equality sector. I urge him to engage with the two ombudsmans' offices to clarify their remaining concerns so that they can be resolved through either legislation or changes to departmental rules. It is clear that the Department and the ombudsmans' offices disagree on these matters, but we need to resolve this as our next step.

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate our report and thank those who contributed to the discussion. I look forward to studying the report of the working group and to the development of an application system that does not leave people to languish for years in these centres.

See this speech in context