Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

According to a spending review, published by the Department of Justice and Equality in August, 39 direct provision centres are in operation. Seven of them are State-owned but all the centres are managed by private contractors. Recent statistics show that we had just under 3,000 applications for asylum in 2017 with just over 5,000 people living in direct provision with an average length of stay of 23 months. I welcome the fact that the average length of stay has reduced from a height of 48 months on average in 2013 and 2014. However, there is still more to do to further reduce the time people spend in this system. It is also the case that the average may mask more lengthy stays in direct provision experienced by a small number of people.

A more recent phenomenon is that hundreds of people who have been granted refugee status are nonetheless still living in the direct provision system because they cannot secure alternative accommodation. This was referred to by the Minister in his opening statement. It is clearly due to the crisis we face with the lack of affordable housing throughout the country, especially in larger towns and cities.

My main concern with direct provision is the reported variability of standards and conditions. Some direct provision centres are clearly working well with those living in them well integrated into the locality in which they are based. There is much interaction between local communities and these centres and I have knowledge of such cases. Other examples, however, have come to public attention where people have described the most depressing experience of living for years in unsuitable and inadequate conditions, not least for children growing up in the system.

One organisation that has extensively examined the issue is Nasc, a migrant and refugee rights organisation based in Cork. One of Nasc’s major complaints is that important recommendations to improve direct provision, which have come from various reports instituted when my party was in government, are not being fully implemented. Nasc has called on the Department of Justice and Equality to implement key recommendations on asylum decision-making, backlogs and waiting times. Additional judges were appointed today, which might address this issue to some extent.

Nasc has sought the full implementation of recommendations relating to the provision of kitchens and living spaces in family centres. It has called for the development of national standards and the establishment of an independent inspectorate body, essential to ensure a minimum level of standards across all direct provision centres. I welcome the Minister’s comments on the two groups that will work in this area, with the second group under Catherine Day to be established imminently.

Nasc has sought to progress the establishment of multidisciplinary vulnerability screening in line with the EU reception conditions directive and the McMahon recommendations. This would ensure access to the labour market is effective, including access to education and training for asylum seekers. It is important that people in direct provision centres can avail of further education to maintain and enhance the skills they have.

While I acknowledge conditions in some direct provision centres have improved, the system as a whole remains inadequate. The challenge to the critics of direct provision, a challenge put down by the Minister earlier, is always to describe what they would replace it with. There are three options. The first is to continue with the current system with variable conditions provided by different private operators in different locations, which is not a real option.

The second option is to halt direct provision altogether and to put asylum seekers into the housing market or into social housing. This would not be an appropriate response at this time, given the massive strain under which the housing system is throughout the country.

It might incur a greater cost to the State in paying private rents as part of this approach and would inevitably give rise to tensions locally when persons on long waiting lists were dislodged.

The third option which, as far as I am concerned, is the only viable option is to consolidate the current system in a more uniform national scheme, with stronger, independently monitored, standards and frequent inspections to ensure those standards were being rigidly adhered to. It would make sense for a single entity or agency to deliver such a standardised service. It could be done by expanding the remit of an existing public agency or creating a new public agency to do this work.

It would be interesting to know how much of the cost of €78 million of direct provision in 2018 went directly to those delivering direct provision accommodation. I am uncomfortable with the notion of there being a profit-making approach to providing services for people who are fleeing persecution. We should bring this to an end. It is inappropriate that providers of direct provision accommodation have a strong incentive to maximise their profits. It should be a not-for-profit service, where all incentives would be aligned to promote the human rights and best interests of those seeking asylum in the country who naturally include many people who have suffered traumatic experiences and, potentially, suffered unspeakable abuse and violence. There is nothing wrong in principle with the direct provision of accommodation for asylum seekers, but what is needed is continued improvement of the experience of everyone who spends time in the system. State-led delivery of the service seems to be the best way forward, on property that is State owned, staffed by people who are State employees operating a system which is rigidly monitored under uniform State rules and independently vetted.

In the time remaining to me I want to quickly raise two other issues of concern, the first of which is the right of asylum seekers to work which, unfortunately, remains restricted. A person must be waiting for at least eight months, meet other criteria and - this is the real bugbear - renew the permission to remain every six months. I understand the need to ensure the asylum process is not seen as a route for illegal migration into Ireland, but these restrictions make it very difficult for asylum seekers to gain good employment. Employers will be wary of employing persons whose right to work expires every six months and must be renewed. I ask the Minister of State to examine that measure.

The second concern relates to the long-term process involved in gaining Irish citizenship. Recently, the Taoiseach welcomed the fact that 120,000 people had become Irish citizens in the recent years. I, too, welcome it. New Irish citizens come from a wide variety of backgrounds and include persons in the United Kingdom with Irish ancestry, some of whom have explicitly sought Irish citizenship because of Brexit. The vast majority make a valuable contribution to our society, economy and cultural life. I have previously called on the Taoiseach to examine the unfair costs involved in adopting Irish citizenship. I ask the Minister of State to take note of the following. Descendants of Irish grandparents can gain a passport for €278, even if they or their parents have never set foot in Ireland, whereas foreign nationals who have been working and paying taxes here for years must pay €1,125 to complete the process of naturalisation. I genuinely believe this is unfair and unjust. The lower cost should apply to all new citizens. This is one example of an unfair roadblock for refugees and asylum seekers on the road to attaining full Irish citizenship for themselves and their children. It should be remembered that these costs are multiplied by the number of family members seeking citizenship. The cost to the State would be negligible in lowering the cost to €278 for everyone. It is an important point of principle on which I hope the Minister of State will concede in his remarks in response to the debate.

See this speech in context