Dáil debates

Thursday, 30 March 2017

Direct Provision: Statements

 

11:25 am

Photo of Róisín ShortallRóisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

Every party in this House acknowledges, and they did so in their election manifestos, that the current system is not working and is not acceptable.

What is required urgently is Government action, not more words. Direct provision was only ever intended to be a short-term response but it has since become a national disgrace. There is no disagreement with that assessment. If the current system cannot provide decisions within the six months that were initially envisioned, direct provision is not fit for purpose. The Government must accept responsibility for this and act. From the contributions we have heard this morning, it is clear this is not a controversial view. Everyone agrees. We all want the Government to act, as the quality of life of those currently living in direct provision will not be improved by us making statements about the system's flaws. We need political action.

We need a more radical reform of our immigration system as a whole. For the time being, though, addressing the conditions for people currently held in direct provision must be the Government's priority. The recommendations of the McMahon report contained a number of practical steps to improve the system. To her credit, the Tánaiste has implemented the majority of those recommendations. However, some of the ones that could have the greatest impact on quality of life remain outstanding.

It goes without saying that basic resources like access to cooking facilities and private living spaces are fundamental to family life and well-being. The McMahon report recommended that this should be the norm in all centres by the end of 2016. Well into 2017, though, fewer than half of the accommodation centres under contract have some form of personal catering and it appears that the facilities on offer are far from consistent across the country.

In the progress table that the Tánaiste released, the Reception and Integration Agency did not respond to the recommendation that all requests for tender should specify the requirement for self-contained units and family quarters. This was particularly troubling, given the highly flexible terms of the contracts made with the providers. That requirement for basic family accommodation should have been a key element of the contracts awarded.

According to the Comptroller and Auditor General, these contracts did not include measurable outputs. Instead, they merely stated that accommodation must meet a standard that was reasonable having regard to the daily needs of asylum seekers. That is too vague. It must be borne in mind that these companies are commercial providers. Between 2011 and 2015, they were paid a total of €287 million, which is a vast amount of money. In the same period, nine companies were each paid in excess of €10 million. It seems that the only ones benefitting from direct provision are the companies running the centres. It is the nature of such companies to put their profit margins above the quality of their services. If the Government intends to continue with the privatisation of this care, it must ensure greater oversight of these facilities and enforce a standard level of quality throughout the system.

For too long, the State has kept these facilities at arm's length, choosing to ignore that the people they hold are a part of our communities. Nor does the State's responsibility to them end when they are granted leave to remain. As of last August, one in six residents in direct provision had been granted refugee status, subsidiary protection or leave to remain but had nowhere else to go. In our alternative budget, the Social Democrats proposed allocating €600,000 to provide for a multidisciplinary team to support individuals and families to transition from direct provision. We remain strongly of that view.

Rather than sharing the kind words and moral outrage about direct provision, what is needed from the Government is clear political action. Regardless of how or why someone comes to our country seeking asylum, failing to ensure that he or she is afforded a basic level of dignity and respect betrays the very decency that is so fundamental to our national identity. We need action quickly.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.