Dáil debates
Thursday, 19 June 2014
Topical Issue Debate
Direct Provision System
5:05 pm
Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
The issue of direct provision centres has been troubling many people for quite a while. During the recent controversy about mother and baby homes, I came to the conclusion that there has always been a view in Ireland that some children are somehow lesser children. This cannot be dismissed as something that happened in the past. It is clear from the way Irish society views Roma children, Traveller children or poor children in general that it sees some children as lesser children than others. It is very difficult not to agree with this conclusion when one examines the way the State deals with children who are in direct provision centres. As the Minister knows, these centres were designed as a six-month solution for asylum seekers on their arrival in Ireland. We have 35 of these centres in the Republic. Given that three of them were purpose built, it is clear that most of the time we are talking about hostels or other such unsuitable accommodation.
The weekly allowance received by asylum seekers in direct provision centres is €19.10. The payment in the case of children is €9.60. This amount has not changed for 14 years. Some 59% of all residents have been in direct provision for more than three years. I remind the House that the initial intention was that this would be a six-month solution. Some 31% of residents have been in direct provision for more than five years and 9% for more than seven years. The number of people we are talking about - approximately 4,300, some 1,700 of whom are children - is higher than the State's prison population. The inspection regime in these centres is managed by the Reception and Integration Agency, which I understand outsources a substantial number of health and safety inspections to the private sector. I do not think this is good enough. Responsibility for overseeing the health and mental well-being of 1,700 children should be given to an agency like the Health Information and Quality Authority.
It is inevitable that 50 years from now, people will look damningly at this Republic and this Government for the way we have treated and accommodated these children. Do we have a policy on how to move from the current direct provision scandal? Will we commit to putting in place a system that will allow families to move on, for example, by guaranteeing them a definite decision on their status within six months? Why are we overseeing a system that can cause a child to spend seven or nine years in a direct provision centre? Do we view the children who live in these centres, many of whom are Irish born, as members of society and citizens of the Republic? Are they seen as lesser children with lesser rights under this Republic, just as the children in the mother and baby homes were seen back in the day?
Obviously, the Minister has an intimate understanding of this situation due to her previous role as Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. Now that she has been appointed as Minister for Justice and Equality, she is ideally placed to rid this Republic of this scandal. There will come a time when we will know about the long-term damage and mental trauma caused by requiring children to live their lives in this limbo. Articles will be written about this issue and the Dáil record will be investigated. When these arrangements come back to haunt us in years to come, people will ask what this Government did about them. Regardless of what previous Governments did and irrespective of who established these centres in the first place, deep and challenging questions will be asked about what we did at this time to resolve this situation. I will conclude by repeating my fundamental questions. Are we going to commit to reverting to the six-month understanding? Will we transfer the inspection regime to a more suitable agency, such as HIQA?
Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank Deputy Ó Ríordáin for raising this Topical Issue matter in the Dáil this afternoon. As he has said, there are 4,353 residents in 34 direct provision accommodation centres throughout the State under contract to the Reception and Integration Agency of the Department of Justice and Equality. I visited Mosney last Monday week and met the managers and residents there. I had visited other centres in Dublin previously. I assure the Deputy in the first instance of my interest in the issue he has raised today.
An interviewee on RTE's "Morning Ireland" yesterday said that these centres are not inspected and that people who reach the age of 18 are expelled from them with nothing other than a sleeping bag. I assure the House that neither statement is true. It is surprising that despite numerous responses by previous Ministers over the years to Oireachtas queries on the matter, there remains a belief that asylum accommodation centres are not subject to proper inspection. I could see when I visited Mosney that these centres are inspected. I knew it from visiting other centres as well. All centres are subject to a minimum of three unannounced inspections a year - one by an independent company, QTS, under contract to the Reception and Integration Agency, and two by officials of the agency. Moreover, since 1 October last year, details of all completed inspections are published on the agency's website, www.ria.gov.ie. This adds to the transparency of the system.
Anybody - researchers, Oireachtas Members, residents of centres, NGOs and so on - can examine these reports in detail.
Asylum accommodation centres do not exist in isolation. In fact, they are subject not only to inspections by the Reception and Integration Agency, but other State inspections. They are, for example, subject to inspection by fire officers and, in respect of food issues, to unannounced inspections by environmental health officers. RIA centres are occupied on a 24-7 basis and maintenance issues are an ongoing fact of life. Where problems are found as a result of these inspections, they are fixed. This is precisely the purpose of an inspection regime. Of course, some problems need time to fix. In regard to overcrowding, for instance, all RIA centres are subject to the requirements of the Housing Acts 1996 to 2002. Where a family increases in size such that these requirements are no longer met, alternative suitable accommodation is offered by the RIA. Some families decline such an offer, however, because they are settled, in so far as they can be, in the centres.
The RIA takes the issue of vulnerable persons in the system very seriously. All staff in direct provision centres are Garda vetted and there are robust policies in place relating to child protection, sexual harassment and violence. There is a specific unit within the RIA, the child and family services unit, which is headed up by an official seconded from the Child and Family Agency. I have spoken to this official about the importance of being very alert to the issues the Deputy raised. The individual in question has very good clinical expertise in the area of child welfare and protection. Details of the work of this unit can be found on the RIA website. As Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, I met with officials from the Department of Justice and Equality to discuss the child protection policies in place in these centres in order to ensure they were, for example, subject to Children First procedures. I was assured that this is the case. I also made recommendations that the visibility of children in direct provision should be more evident in all reports and statistics that are gathered. In addition, I wanted to make sure that children in direct provision have access to the early childhood care and education, ECCE, scheme, which they do.
I appreciate the point the Deputy is making regarding the care and welfare of children in direct provision as it is currently operated. The operation of the system is kept under review. I have acknowledged that the length of time residents have spent and are spending in direct provision is an issue that needs to be addressed. I have absolutely no desire for applicants to remain in the protection system any longer than the minimum period it takes to process their cases. Many of the issues the Deputy raised today are on our agenda. The direct provision system is not ideal, but it does facilitate the State in providing a roof over the heads of those seeking asylum, that is, those persons seeking to be allowed to remain in the State on humanitarian grounds. The system is inextricably linked to the surrounding international protection process.
A key priority for the Government in this area must be to bring forward the legislative reform aimed at establishing a single application procedure for the investigation of all grounds for protection and any other grounds presented by applicants seeking to remain in the State. The current system is too complex, with too many different elements to it and various opportunities for judicial review which invariably mean that rather than a decision being taken quickly, applicants are spending many years in the system. I met some applicants in Mosney who have been there for nine years. That is not acceptable. I would like to simplify and streamline the existing arrangements by removing the multi-layered and sequential processes and providing applicants with a final decision in a more straightforward and timely fashion. With that in mind, I am reviewing, in consultation with my officials, the work done to date on the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill, following which I will decide on how best to progress the implementation of the Government's priorities. In particular, I wish to examine whether amendments to certain sections of that Bill would allow us to expedite the establishment of a single application procedure. Such a reform would transform what has been happening for more than a decade in respect of applicants who arrive in this country.
5:15 pm
Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
I thank the Minister for her reply, which shows she is well aware of the realities of the direct provision system and the challenges they present. The fact that she has visited a centre gives me great hope that she will be in a good position to address the problems in the system. Nevertheless, I hold fast to the view that the subcontracting out of the inspection regime to the private sector does not offer sufficient protections and that it should be brought under the auspices of the Health Information and Quality Authority. It is clear that the Minister recognises what needs to be done to tackle this issue, including the necessary legislative changes. Moreover, she seems keenly aware of the damage caused when children spend years in these types of settings. There is no requirement to for that point to be reinforced.
Will the Minister indicate the type of timeline she envisages for the legislative measures to which she referred? Can she give a commitment that we will revisit this issue in a structured and timetabled fashion rather than discussing it on the basis of media reports or by way of a Topical Issue debate or parliamentary question? Will she give a further undertaking to the House that in the time left to this Government, be it two years or less, reform of the direct provision system will be a priority? We should be able, at the end of our term in government, to say we have made solid progress for the sake of the children and families involved. We should be in a position to point to the steps we have taken and the results achieved.
We should at least be able to say we did that much for these vulnerable children. These children are not lesser. They are living in this republic, and that means something. After all that has happened in this country, we have a deep understanding of the trauma and long-term damage that can be done to children if there is not a proper focus on their social, emotional and educational needs at this vulnerable time in their lives. To summarise, I am asking the Minister to elaborate on the potential for HIQA to step in as inspector and, second, to give a timetable for nailing down the improvements in this area to which the Minister is clearly committed to driving forward.
Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source
In regard to the inspection regime, HIQA is being asked to do a great deal of things at this time. For instance, as Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, I asked it to examine child protection teams, what the benchmarks should be and the progress that needs to be made. That progress is under way. I am not sure HIQA is necessarily the right body for what the Deputy is proposing, but I understand where he is coming from. I will ask my officials to examine the issue to see whether any additional safeguards can be built into the direct provision inspection regime, with particular regard to children in the system.
In regard to the timetable for progress, I will be reviewing the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill in the coming weeks and will make a decision quite soon as to whether we can move on the protection procedure as a first step. There will be different views on whether we should do that or whether it should continue to be integrated into the larger immigration Bill. I wish to make sold progress on this matter within the timeframe the Deputy outlined. Moving away from the current multi-layered structure could, on its own, be an important initiative from a legislative point of view in order to deal with the issues we are discussing here today.