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

We are dealing with two separate issues if we are talking about the Bill and the direct provision system. Approximately half of the people here seeking asylum are in direct provision and half are not. There are approximately 4,500 people in direct provision and a similar number are not. Members know the working group was established 18 months ago and it reported earlier this year. A number of those recommendations are being worked on. It is the only document in town when it comes to direct provision and nothing else is being entertained. It is the document that the Government is working from and many of the recommendations are in this Bill. Other recommendations, such as those relating to the right to work provision mentioned by the Deputy, are currently being assessed by the Cabinet sub-committee on social policy.

I have visited approximately 14 centres around the country. The overarching and main issue that is constantly being raised is the length of time in the system. It does not matter what kind of wonderful conditions that anybody could possibly put in place for people seeking protection as they just want out. It is not a place to live for a long period or, certainly, to raise a family. We do not accept the amendment because this is a different issue to what is being dealt with in the Bill.

Since the publication of the report between 60 and 80 people per month who have lived in the direct provision system over five years have been getting leave to remain. The report's recommendations are being implemented, even in this Bill. We have seen over 80 deportation orders quashed since July. Other recommendations are yet to be effected. If we get to a stage where every asylum application is assessed within six months, it would logically follow that asylum seekers could access the labour market and other entitlements.

When direct provision was first established, it was a response to a homelessness issue. There were 10,000 applications per year in the early 2000s and people were living in parks and playgrounds, sleeping on benches because there was nowhere for them to live. It was a homelessness crisis in the asylum system. The direct provision system was established with the intention that applicants would be there for a number of months. I could stand over a system where people would live in a facility for a number of months but I cannot stand over a system that belittles people because they are there for years on end. That is why we put together a working group to consider the entire process, including direct provision. It did not advocate an amnesty but rather that anybody in the system for over five years should see a fast-track approach in their application. That is exactly what is happening and I have mentioned the figures already.

This is for new applicants and to deal with them in a fairer and more transparent fashion so that they do not have to languish in a protection system for years on end. This is so we do not have the scandalous position of families living in and children being born in centres, living there for nine, ten or 11 years and knowing nothing else but the walls of a direct provision centre. We are trying to effect reform to deal with the backlog of applications in the system. For the information of the Deputies opposite, approximately 450 people in direct provision have leave to remain but have nowhere to go because of housing issues. I have had to take on the responsibility of chairing a task force, examining the information and empowering people to be able to access accommodation, dealing with local authorities and housing agencies to ensure that families can get out of direct provision into accommodation to rebuild their lives. They have an absolute right to do that. We are working with them. The worst thing we could do to a family is say that they have leave to remain and show them the door. We have not done that. There are approximately 18 cases of people who have been in direct provision for more than a year after they get leave to remain status.

I understand and admire the Deputies' intent and campaigning zeal on the issue. We have worked together on this issue, as we have with many Deputies opposite. The intent of this Bill is to have a process that is much more humane and transparent, so as to deal with the issue much more quickly than the current system. Direct provision is a separate issue that is being dealt with through the report, which has been signed off by many non-governmental organisations in the field. Its recommendations are being implemented as I speak.

See this speech in context