Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Among the issues raised most frequently are the duration of stay in direct provision, the impact of this on family life and children, issues around oversight and monitoring and the question of a right to work, which thankfully has been changed recently. In 2015, the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions stated that the system is not fit for purpose and recommended that it should be replaced. The latest available annual report by the Reception and Integration Agency, RIA, which oversees the direct provision system on behalf of the Department of Justice and Equality, reveals that the number of single males seeking asylum and availing of the offer of accommodation stands at 55.66% of the total applications. There is also clear evidence that the number of children consigned to these facilities is unacceptably high. We have our own children spending their childhoods in hotels and emergency accommodation and we have children who have fled or who have arrived here with their parents spending their childhoods in these direct provision centres. It is simply not good enough.

I want to state emphatically that from a humanitarian perspective we are duty bound to offer whatever assistance we can to those genuinely in need of asylum and further to ensure that those who enter the direct provision system are treated with dignity and respect. That is of paramount importance.

The human person must be at the centre of all our laws. If people are genuinely fleeing persecution and seeking refuge here, then we should extend our compassion and put into action the principles that we spend so much time talking about. It is absolutely appalling to read reports that some children are spending almost their entire childhood in these centres or in the direct provision system. This must end. While our humanitarian duty is clear, however, so also is our duty to the security of the State. The issue of oversight and monitoring and how the application process is managed is critically important. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend that our asylum system, just like those in most other European countries, is not open to abuse and violation. Most systems can be violated and undermined.

There are those who will seek to enter this State through the asylum system and who will not have our best interests at heart. We must not of course confuse these people with genuine asylum seekers, but we must not be so innocent as to believe all applicants are genuine. We have seen the figures for those that have been refused. They are high from many countries, reaching almost 97% and 98% in some cases. The direct provision system, as part of the overall asylum process, certainly needs to become more robust even as it seeks to become fairer. That might be a challenge, but the system must be robust and fair. The number of asylum seekers accommodated by RIA in December 2015 was 4,696.

That was already an increase of 332 persons, or 7.6%, from the same date in 2014. It was also the second year-on-year increase in seven years. The RIA spent €57.025 million in respect of the accommodation of asylum seekers in 2015, an increase of 407% on the 2014 outturn. As I understand it, however, there are about 6,100 people in direct provision. This is four years after the Fine Gael-Labour Party Government's own working group report on direct provision made numerous recommendations on how to make the system more humane. Several years later, nothing of significance has really changed so the Government needs to examine its own record. It made recommendations and had a working group report but, as with many other reports, it is gathering dust on a shelf. That is not fair.

A second reception centre was established in Borrisokane quite recently. I salute Councillor Joe Hannigan, the public and all the others involved there on their engagement in this regard. The centre was landed on them without any notice, which is part of the problem. We are a very welcoming people. It is Ireland of the thousand welcomes. People in the main want to be fair, responsible and respectful and help in any way they can. The concept of meitheal still exists. The centre was landed on the individuals and a public meeting was held. Some people tried to infiltrate it and they were not wanted or welcome and were sent packing. This could be held up as a model of how to do things right, not that the people wanted that. The building was new but left idle and it is now being used. The families are being integrated.

I have to be very critical of how the Department of Justice and Equality, whose Minister and Minister or State are the figureheads and leaders, has operated. There is a cloud of secrecy. I do not accept the argument about contracts and tenders. There are contracts and tenders for every project. We are duty-bound to have them. Why is this so different? Why does there have to be secrecy? Secrecy only develops rumours and falsehoods. Different things get said and they grow legs, as the Minister of State knows. It is better to be upfront with people. Ask and you shall receive. People will offer support. There will be those with worries but they can be allayed and discussed.

On behalf of the Rural Independent Group, I will take up the offer of the Minister, Deputy Flanagan. I was not here when it was made. We are willing to meet the Minister, talk to him and engage. Every Member, in any House, has a right to ask questions. If we lose that right in this House and the other, God help us. A Member must be allowed to stand up and ask a question when he has figures supplied to him by the World Bank. We are right in this Chamber to ask those questions without being shouted down and being called racist. That is outrageous. It is an attack on democracy from the great liberals who tell us they know everything and who want everything. I defend Deputy Grealish in that he is 100% right to ask a question here. The Ceann Comhairle allowed him to do so. We are elected here for that purpose. The people can be the final arbiters, and anybody else after that. There should not be bully-boy tactics whereby one is called all kinds of names.

Mr. Justice Bryan McMahon, who chaired the working group on direct provision, appeared before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice and Equality and made the very points I have made. During the committee debate, he stated that in 2018 there was a definite trend representing an increase in new applications, averaging more than 300 per month. He also noted at the meeting that those who have received positive decisions about leaving direct provision are obliged to continue to live in the centres. That is not fair. As was noted, there are between 700 and 800 trying to transition out of direct provision but who cannot do so. Owing to the shortage of accommodation, the RIA is obliged to provide emergency accommodation outside the centres. That is a costly business owing to the housing crisis, as we all know. It costs in the region of €99 per night per person to accommodate those who cannot be accommodated in direct provision centres.

As the migrant crisis continues to show no signs of abating, we can be sure that the costs and the number of applicants within our asylum process will remain similar and more than likely increase in the coming years. What is most depressing is that this has been going on for years. The Government has foisted direct provision onto communities with little or no meaningful communication. That is the problem. The Department of Justice and Equality only seems to engage after the fact and then wonders why people are so annoyed and frustrated. The Minister of State is from a rural area and knows how communities tick and work. It is a matter of bringing them with us and of engagement.

As far back as December 2015, I asked the then Minister for Justice and Equality, Ms Frances Fitzgerald, whether she would address concerns around the designation of a hotel in Clonea Strand as an emergency reception and orientation centre. It is not far down the road from the Minister of State. The concerns were brought to me by locals who were deeply frustrated by the lack of engagement with them before this decision was made. There is no other reason. The people wanted general information and consultation. As part of the reply I received, I was told that, in such cases, potential centres are assessed from a number of perspectives, including access to local amenities, the provision of State services and the suitability of the accommodation for its particular purposes. Putting individuals in some of the places they have been put lately without services and without telling the locals flies in the face of that. There was not a single mention of local engagement in the reply.

The designation was for a refugee centre so it is not strictly the same as the asylum centres but I note how important it is that we bring communities with us when attempting to make progress in a matter that is fair to all concerned. I salute the people of Carrick-on-Suir, who have had a centre for 18 years, and the committee. There were many problems at the start. The residents were incarcerated in the centre, a big gated building. It was a case of them and us but Bridgewater House and many individuals, including Martina Walsh, have engaged with the residents and embraced them. We meet them now as they integrate into the community. They have been well treated and respected, as they should be. They are human beings. We need to put in the support services and we cannot just foist them on people.

See this speech in context