Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

This Revised Estimate is for a very wide-ranging brief, and one could really spend an awful lot of time discussing all the ins and outs of it. However, I want to focus on the programme expenditure titled "An efficient, responsive and fair immigration, asylum and citizenship system," which - according to the Estimates presented to us in this programme - has an increased projected budget of 25% from €116 million to approximately €145 million. Of the €145 million allocated, there is an increase in expenditure for asylum accommodation by €17.2 million, yet there is no breakdown of where and how this money will be spent. I hope the Minister will provide a breakdown to the House to show exactly where this money is going.

Despite this increase, there is no indication that additional staff numbers will be provided, which leads me to question the Minister’s claim that reform of the asylum system is under way. Last week the Minister confirmed that the Department of Justice and Equality has implemented 91 of the 173 recommendations from the working group report. However, the Minister has again provided very little detail in her reply to me on the recommendation, and we are still no better at understanding how in fact she has implemented those recommendations. All that the Minister provided in her PQ reply was ticks in boxes marked "implemented." The budget simply does not match the level of reform that the Minister claims has been carried out. Sufficient funding is central to any reform programme. The McMahon report stated that a failure to invest in decision-making staff will inevitably lead to significant backlogs in case processing and a consequent need to accommodate ever-greater numbers in direct provision, “with all the attendant concerns”. I do not need to go into what is meant by "attendant concerns" because it has been well documented how degrading it is for people in long-stay direct provision.

I acknowledge that certain changes were made in terms of the provision of staff resources, including the extensive changes to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal membership, with a new panel of members appointed during late 2013 and 2014. However, it did take time to appoint and train the new members, which inevitably affected the tribunal’s case processing capacity. Additional resources were also provided for the establishment of Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, ORAC, including an appointed legal panel of 20 persons to deal with the backlog of cases, with 4.8 internal staff assigned to sign off on decisions alongside an additional 16 support staff. There has been an increase in the direct provision weekly payment, the first increase since 2000, which raised child benefit by €6 per week to a rate of €15.60 per week, but it fell short of the rate of €29.80 recommended by the working group. These attempts are far from the recommended allocation of resources as set out in the report of the McMahon working group.

The working group undertook and costed a financial modelling exercise which included a long stayer solution effectively granting the 4,207 persons who have been five or more years in the system, leave to remain in a speedy, effective manner on a legally sound basis. The group also costed the introduction of a single procedure which is underway with the passing of the International Protection Act 2015. Despite a commitment from the Government for an additional budget allocation to deal with demands on the asylum and immigration systems including backlog cases identified in the report, there are huge concerns regarding the capacity of the various authorities charged with making decisions on protection applications. Without the extra resources the benefits of the single procedure in speeding up the processing of applications will not be achieved, especially as the number of applications may increase over time.

Reducing time spent in the system will see a reduction in the numbers in direct provision, a reduction in the pressure put on accommodation needs and will bring large savings to the State which can then be reinvested in integration and child benefit for asylum families. Each year a person remains in the system it costs the State an average of almost €11,000 for the provision of accommodation. Today in the Estimates, the provision of an additional €17 million for asylum accommodation is an indication of the increased pressure on the existing protection system. While addressing the accommodation needs is absolutely necessary, it is a reflection of the fact that little reform has been carried out on the asylum system as a whole. Huge savings could be made if the recommendations were properly implemented. Again the working group has calculated potential savings as some €194 million over five years. That number justifies the expenditure of €135.4 million over the same period and which is required to fund the recommendations the Minister claims her Department are undertaking. The additional €135 million in costs are broken down between improvements to the protection process of costing €14 million, improvements in living conditions in direct provision accommodation centres costing €69 million and improvements in supports to applicants costing €52 million.

A reformed system would see increased staffing to facilitate speedy processing of applications, meaning less reliance on direct provision, less pressure on the direct provision system and more scope to increase social welfare allowances etc. The financial modelling exercise demonstrates conclusively that investing in decision-making not only yields returns in reducing time spent by a person in the system, but also makes financial sense. A lack of reform in the protection system might cost the State more money in the long run, but the human cost from the failure to act will be too high. It is the asylum applicants and their families who will pay the greatest price in this system.

I will now turn to issues relating to crime statistics and the resourcing of the Garda which is vitally important in dealing with the upsurge in gang related crime across the State. However, we also need to talk with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and the Minister for Education and Skills to focus on funding diversionary projects for young people in communities that are at risk of high levels of crime. These areas have suffered successive cuts over the years and things are at a standstill now in the probation services, juvenile diversion programmes and community service orders. These creative type programmes can deliver and divert young people, especially young men, away from crime. This is vitally important in looking to the future and ensuring we can divert people away from crime. While it will not deal with the current crisis it means that we would not be looking at other crises further down the road.

See this speech in context