Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to take part in this debate although "delight" is the wrong word because I thought at this stage, one year after the election, that we would have decisions in respect of the most fundamental recommendation from the McMahon report, which was the right to work. I cannot imagine what would stop any Government from giving that right.

Second, one recommendation was that after a period of time, I believe it was five years, nobody should be kept in direct provision without having their status legalised. Those are two basic requirements and here we are a year later, after a new election and new promises, still talking about direct provision.

As it is difficult to get information, the Minister of State should correct me if the figures have changed but as of last July, 450 people had been resident in direct provision for more than seven years. Has that figure increased or decreased? I do not know but it is certainly shocking that we would keep people - including mothers and children - in very confined conditions for more than seven years and call ourselves a civilised society. We have international obligations. We are complying with those obligations in the most minimal way possible with direct provision. We have had direct provision as a temporary measure now for 17 years. It is now 2017, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and we started this direct provision in 2000 as a temporary measure.

On top of that, I know in Galway and other centres that people have been granted asylum status but cannot leave direct provision.

I and many other Deputies have asked many questions and we are going around in circles. We have been directed to the Department of Social Protection for people to get their entitlements, but that is not the issue. The issue is that the Department of Social Protection will not talk to people in direct provision if they do not have an address. A hostel address is not good enough for the Department. Having being granted asylum status, people are stuck in direct provision.

There are 35 centres around the country, seven of which are State owned and for which two companies have been contracted to provide services. The other 28 are privately operated and make huge profits. I am not criticising the providers because Government policy has allowed them to come forward. Our human rights obligations should not be fulfilled in such a way that companies and private operators are allowed to make profits. That is not the way to comply with our legal obligations.

The system should be streamlined, as the Government is trying to do with the new legislation. It is appalling that large profits are being made by those running direct provision centres while people cannot work or cook their own food. There have many discussions in the House regarding our obligations to children. Surely we will not distinguish between children based on the colour of their skin or country. I know the Minister of State is not the type of Minister to do that, but that is exactly what is happening in our policies. We are distinguishing between people because they are behind closed doors which means we do not have to look at them.

There is a narrative that money is being thrown at these people. They have come to our country seeking refuge, as Irish people did elsewhere in the past. We are giving adults and children €19.10 and €15.60, respectively, per week and calling that humanity. On top of that, we are creating many problems for the future, as the Minister of State knows. If we were to try living like that, what effect would it have on our physical and mental health, not to mention that of the children in the system?

The pilot project was introduced in 2015 to allow certain residents to go to university. I would like to know how many have fulfilled the criteria involved. They are very restricted – I understand an applicant must have been in direct provision for five years and attended a school for a minimum of five years. I ask the Minister of State to outline how many people have qualified under the rules.

From many of the discussions we have had in the Dáil, the Minister of State appears to be a very concerned Minister. How can he stand over direct provision, which was introduced as a temporary measure in 2000? Why not set a date to end it? It could be his legacy.

See this speech in context