Michael Harty (Clare, Independent) | Oireachtas source

My question is on direct provision. Direct provision is a system for accommodating those who are seeking asylum and it is now 20 years old. In general terms, it seeks to provide protection for those who are fleeing either political or religious persecution. It is an outdated system and needs to change. It was originally introduced in 1999 as a temporary emergency measure. The system has had some modifications over the years, particularly following the McMahon report of 2016, but essentially the basic system remains. The McMahon report's terms of reference were to look at improving the existing system but it did not look at providing alternative systems for asylum seekers. It looked at improving the speed at which their applications were processed and that was important for shortening their stays within the system. However, many stay in direct provision for several years, even after they have been granted refugee status because they have not been integrated into the community and they cannot find independent housing.

Ireland fulfils its obligations under international law by providing shelter, food, access to healthcare and education. However, it has been criticised by human rights organisations on the basis that the direct provision system is degrading and dehumanising because it segregates asylum seekers into institutional care and does not integrate them into the community. The demands on direct provision are increasing again, with more than 6,000 people in the system, including 1,700 children. They are a vulnerable group of people who have to spend a prolonged period of time within direct provision. There are 39 direct provision centres and almost every county has a centre. Due to increased demand, asylum seekers are now placed in temporary emergency accommodation, even outside the direct provision institutions.

In Clare, we have two centres, in Knockalisheen and Lisdoonvarna, and we are aware of the situation in Oughterard in Galway, which has been controversial over the past week or so. The choice of a site now follows a familiar pattern. There is an expression of interest, the locations are assessed, rumours circulate, fear of the unknown dominates discourse, protests opposing the location of a centre are held, tensions run high and people take up entrenched positions. There is a lack of engagement with the community and a lack of assurances that communities will not be disadvantaged by having a centre close by. There is a failure to assure that adequate supports will be put in place to provide adequate health, education, social inclusion and transport services. Fear of the unknown drives anxiety. Is direct provision a failed model and does the Government have anything to offer to provide new models of care?

See this speech in context