Dáil debates

Wednesday, 1 October 2014

Direct Provision for Asylum Seekers: Motion (Resumed) [Private Members]

 

The following motion was moved by Deputy Thomas Pringle on Tuesday, 30 September 2014:That Dáil Éireann:notes:— 2014 marks the 14th year of the existence of the Direct Provision system in Ireland; — over 4,300 asylum seekers are currently residing in the 34 Direct Provision centres in the State, some of whom have been living in these centres for up to and above 10 years; and — that more than one third of these residents are children who have spent a great deal of their lives, or their entire lives in these centres, which is having a negative impact on their safety and development;acknowledges:— that the Direct Provision system is an ineffective and costly system that is not fit for purpose; — concerns raised by the United Nations Human Rights Committee regarding the ‘prolonged accommodation of asylum seekers in Direct Provision centres which is not conducive to family life’; — concerns raised by the Special Rapporteur on Child Protection in relation to the detrimental effect of Direct Provision accommodation on children and on parents’ ability to provide adequate care; — the social injustice of denying children residing in Direct Provision centres the opportunity to progress to third-level education; — that the personal allowances of €19.10 per adult and €9.60 per child per week are wholly inadequate to address the cost of living; — that the proposed Protection Bill providing for a single application procedure for the investigation of all grounds for protection, in itself, will not benefit those who have already begun the process of applying for asylum in Ireland; and — the Minister for Justice and Equality’s pending establishment of a Direct Provision working group to improve the current system is unnecessary considering the plethora of information available for the Government to act now and provide an alternative system; andcalls on the Government to:— abolish the Direct Provision system and introduce a legislative framework for specialised reception centres operating as ‘one-stop-shops’ for newly arrived protection applicants, providing access to the necessary services for the identification and assessment of needs; — provide appropriate self-catering accommodation which respects family life in a system that embodies the best interests of the child, as well as identifying and properly supporting individuals with special needs and vulnerabilities; — ensure the availability of early legal advice and independent complaints and inspection mechanisms; — provide for the transfer to independent living within six months if a decision on a person’s status has not been reached by then; — lift the prohibition on employment to allow residents of Direct Provision centres to work within six months if a decision on a person’s status has not been reached by then, to enable them to be actively participative in society, giving them a sense of worth and purpose in their daily lives which is a basic need of every human being; — introduce a strategy for implementation of the new system with a clearly defined timeframe to adapt to a reformed system of accommodation for asylum seekers; and — introduce a mechanism that allows asylum seekers that have already begun the process of applying for asylum in Ireland, and who are therefore unable to avail of the single procedure, to be fast-tracked to ensure no further unnecessary delays ensue.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1: To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following :"recognising that:- the current system of direct provision has existed for 14 years; - that the Minister and the Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality, having visited several centres, both agree on the need to review the current system; and - a key concern identified by those working in the sector is the length of time people spend in the system, with over half of residents being in the system for over four years;welcomes the commitments in the statement of Government priorities 2014 to 2016 to:- establish an independent working group to report to the Government on improvements with the protection process, including direct provision and supports for asylum seekers; and - to reduce the length of time the applicant spends in the system through the establishment of a single applications procedure, to be introduced by way of a protection Bill as a matter of priority.-(Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality)

6:25 pm

Photo of Sandra McLellanSandra McLellan (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to share time with Deputy McDonald.

Direct provision is a blight on this State. The notion that the needs of people at their most vulnerable could be met by accommodating them in cramped, unsafe and crowded conditions is a disgrace. Asylum seekers are forced to live on €19.10 per week while awaiting a decision by the State on whether they are allowed to stay in Ireland. Direct provision is meant to provide for the welfare needs of asylum seekers and their families but it does not.

The Government participates in all EU directives on asylum except for Directive 2003/9/EC, also known as the receptive directive. If it abided by the directive, the State would have to permit asylum seekers to participate in the labour market. The refusal to do this has left many families in limbo, relying solely on the State's allowance of €19.10 per adult per week. It also provides a measly €9.60 a week for each child living in these horrendous conditions. What child can be cared for, fed or sent to school on €9.60 a week? The cost of raising a child in Ireland is by no means cheap and a child's well-being, both physical and mental, is not cheap. Securing a decent future for a child is also not cheap. Why then has the Government found it fit to expect parents of children in direct provision to provide for their needs, care for them and carve out opportunities for their future on €9.60 a week? This is unacceptable, wrong and shameful.

Most asylum seekers spend three years in direct provision. A large number have been waiting for seven years or more. Children have been born in these centres and they have lived their entire lives in the system. Their rights have been infringed upon by a State that has no positive history when it comes to the protection of children under its care. The Minister for Education and Skills recently said that children living in direct provision accommodation are being denied a "normal family life" and direct provision accommodation is "not a good system". She also noted her concern regarding access to education for children living in direct provision. Children seeking asylum are entitled to attend primary and secondary school but because they do not qualify for free fees, they cannot access third level education. This means that teenagers who complete their leaving certificate are unable to progress to college, which is shameful.

Why then, if the deplorable insufficiency of this system is recognised by a Minister, does the Government not act immediately to end it? The State has a duty of care to everyone living here. According to the Refugee Council of Ireland, RCI, approximately 2,000 children live in direct provision centres. That's 2,000 children whose basic needs are not being met, who are being failed by the State and whose families were forced to flee war, famine, risk of death or severe punishment and who came here seeking a better, safer life. Recently, 300 residents at the Kinsale Road reception and accommodation centre on the outskirts of Cork city organised ten days of protest seeking an end to this inhumane system. Their voices join a chorus of many and it is time the Government listened. One woman had been in the centre for nine years and was awaiting a decision on her status. She has two young children. This is horrific but this is only one case that acts to highlight the many others.

Direct provision centres deny people the right to prepare food for themselves and their children. Access to food is a basic human right. Food is not just a form of sustenance, as every culture has a different way of eating and of preparing different varieties of food. It is a form of cultural identity and expression. Why are people in direct provision denied the right to prepare their own food, to eat fresh, healthy food and to pass recipes onto their children? Instead they must resort to buying cheap, ready to eat foods such as bread or biscuits, which is shocking. If the Government is going to force people to live in these conditions, the least they could be given is an opportunity to cook. Surely it costs more to contract a company to cook this food. This is just a further degradation of the thousands of people being failed daily by the State.

Cases of young people displaying signs of inappropriate sexualised behaviour, of parents being hospitalised with mental health problems, of women forced into prostitution and of single parent families having to share rooms with total strangers have all been reported to social services. As someone elected to represent my constituents in this Chamber, I am appalled and I am clearly not the only one. Ministers and backbenchers must see these cases and recoil in horror. They have the responsibility to change it. This is State sponsored social exclusion and poverty and the Government must act now. Direct provision should end and vulnerable children should be protected. The Government parties should not allow for this to be the scandal for which future Governments will be forced to apologise. Already, this may prove to be too late.

Photo of Mary Lou McDonaldMary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We in Sinn Féin believe the direct provision system is not acceptable for anybody and should be brought to an end without delay. This system is beneficial to nobody, least of all children. It institutionalises people, damages mental health, denies families privacy and forces a lack of work on them. People living under direct provision are forced by the State to live in inhumane conditions. They have often escaped their country of origin due to persecution, intimidation and violence. They are forced to raise children in cramped conditions, with virtually no disposable income, no resources to provide their children with basics such as school books and no power even over what they feed their children. At the end of last year 1,666 children were living in this system and many have spent their entire childhoods under this regime.

It is little wonder that the chief executive officer of the IRC, Ms Sue Conlan, reported in April this year that she knows of three asylum seeking children aged between 11 and 17 who have expressed suicidal thoughts. It is also little wonder that we witnessed such unrest over the summer in centres in Foynes, Athlone and Cork. In 2011, the IRC received correspondence from a family's general practitioner stating that three children were sharing one bed in one room with their parents in a separate bed. The family requested a transfer to a different hostel or for an adjoining room based on overcrowding. The council was assured that the family was provided with an additional cot and that the room met the relevant codes and requirements but the family remains in one room.

In 2012, a concerned father reported that his children were living in close proximity to men who were not known to them and to people with "severe" mental health conditions. The children along with their family remain in this centre. In 2012, a child presented hungry to the IRC on two occasions because she said she could not eat the reheated fried food provided for lunch. She could not sleep at night due to the noise at the centre and slept in until 1 p.m., missing breakfast as a result. The child was afraid to report this due to her fear of being transferred.

A woman living in the Eglinton hostel in Salthill in Galway spoke in April about her experience of the asylum system. She recounted an incident which occurred on the day a fellow resident received documentation granting permission to remain in Ireland. The woman's four year old child asked whether she and her family were also leaving the Eglinton hostel. When it was explained to the child that they had to wait for their papers the child brought some paper to her mother, gave it to her and said: "Mummy take it and let's leave." "That day I cried", she said. "I cried, I looked at the four corners of the room and I cried."

What makes this issue all the more distressing is that it is absolutely unnecessary. The Minister could, should she choose, abolish the direct provision system tomorrow. Direct provision does not have any legislative basis and came about as a result of a rush job by Fianna Fáil back in 1999. The system bears all the hallmarks of that era, including a complete lack of accountability and poor institutional oversight.

We do not have to wait for the immigration, residence and protection legislation to be passed to put a stop to direct provision. The only beneficiaries of the system are the companies which receive large sums for providing the services used by those seeking asylum. If a rational view were to prevail, this money would be better spent. An issue arises with regard to the awarding of contracts for the provision of services and their procurement. Why do the contracts always appear to be awarded to the same companies and how often are they awarded?

In this House and throughout the country, people have rightly expressed horror and shame at the treatment of children in industrial schools and women and children in Magdalen laundries and mother and baby homes. As we speak on this subject, abuse is taking place before our eyes in centres throughout the country. We have no excuse or alibi for treating people in this way. What is needed is a reformed, robust, efficient and human rights compliant asylum process in which direct provision has no part to play.

6:35 pm

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no reason to become a refugee if it requires a person to exchange one set of fears for another set of fears. With this in mind, we must ask if we can honestly argue that asylum seekers in Ireland are free from fear of persecution. According to the UN refugee convention, fear of persecution looks not only to the past and present but also to the future. In short, it looks at what the future promises. Every person looks to the future not only for himself or herself but especially for his or her children. It is in fear for their future and that of their children that many have left their country of origin.

A refugee system in which asylum seekers are held for years in what can only be described as camps creates worry and breeds fear that worse is to come. This has been affirmed in many requests I have received for intervention both in my capacity as a politician and solicitor. Many of the individuals and families in the asylum system are known to me personally.

It is obvious that conditions in the asylum system are creating a new type of fear for refugees and their children, some of whom were born in Ireland and will no doubt grow up as Irish citizens. It is not in the interests of this country that these children should grow up with a sense that they were discriminated against because of circumstances in which they had no say. If we act now, we may avoid the experience of other countries which have been dealing with displaced persons for longer than Ireland.

I welcome the action that is being taken in this area, including the round-table consultation that has taken place and the decision to establish a future working group. Action must be swift. We must act immediately to ensure the system deals expeditiously with people who present seeking asylum. Some of the residents of asylum centres have great talents, have much to offer this country and want to work and achieve fulfilment, as we all wish to do. The process that determines whether applicants qualify for asylum takes much too long, which is the reason many asylum seekers reside in direct provision centres. The issue must be addressed urgently to create confidence in the asylum process among citizens and asylum seekers.

In light of the many graphic accounts we have heard of the distressing circumstances and poor standards that prevail in some direct provision centres, we should ensure families, particularly children, are looked after properly. As has been stated, we know from our history what happens when the State ignores what is being done in institutions. The speed with which changes are implemented in the asylum system will provide evidence of whether we have learned lessons from the past.

Photo of Anne FerrisAnne Ferris (Wicklow, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a story we have all heard before. It is about a little blonde boy with no name, although in some stories he is referred to as Peter and in others he is called Hans. The little boy lived in The Netherlands where, as we know, the land is permanently under sea level and is spared flooding only by an elaborate series of dams or dykes. The little boy, we are told, was walking home from school one day when he saw water trickling through a hole in the dyke wall. He immediately realised that if the hole was not plugged, the water would eventually breach the dam, causing death and catastrophe across The Netherlands. The story goes that the boy put his chubby little finger in the hole and saved the day. The Minister of State will no doubt forgive me for pointing out the obvious here. In terms of the issue before the House today, the Minister of State is the little boy with his finger in the dam, as his predecessors have been for decades.

When it comes to European immigration the European Union is well below sea level. The opportunities and protections offered to those lucky enough to be deemed citizens of Europe are desired and envied throughout the world. At any given time, millions of people outside the Europe Union are desperately trying to get in. As a member of this club of 28 countries, Ireland shares border control obligations with other member states. We are used to thinking of the word "border" in the context of Northern Ireland. In European terms, however, our entire coastline and airports are our border. Being a member of the European club in effect means that our country is surrounded by a large legislative dyke, designed for controlling floods of immigration into Europe.

The difference between Ireland and the little Dutch boy is that in the fable the people in charge eventually come along to save the boy and fix the structural deficiencies in the dam. The European Union, on the other hand, has failed to address adequately the serious structural inadequacies in its immigration policy. The most tragic aspect of this is that hundreds of thousands of people who desperately need the safety and sanctuary of the European Union to escape political and social persecution in other countries have been abandoned on the high seas, sometimes literally.

Under the terms of the unfortunately named European Union regulation, Dublin III, an application for asylum must be processed by the member state where the applicant first entered Europe. For example, if an asylum seeker arrived here via Northern Ireland, Britain or a French port, he or she must be sent back to the country in which he or she first set foot in Europe, whether the United Kingdom, France or another member state. This system causes much upset and frustration to vulnerable people in need of assistance. It is also a source of potential legal challenge and delay.

All decisions made by the Irish authorities on applications for asylum are made by the public service and, therefore, open to full judicial review by the courts. Many legal challenges can take years to make their way through our clogged up courts system. Perhaps our new court of appeal will help resolve this problem. For most asylum seekers, however, both adults and children, the wait has been too long.

One significant problem is that a common Europe-wide approach is not being applied to the assessment of asylum seeker applications for residency. Each country is expected to manage its own hole in the dam wall. The Opposition motion would merely have us cover the hole with sticking plaster. New European legislation is needed to allow national authorities and courts to fast-track applications using a common EU-wide methodology. Courtesy of Europe, we have a new fast-track system for processing applications for huge wind farms but no such system is in place for asylum seekers. It is time something was done to help all those in direct provision.

6:45 pm

Photo of Andrew DoyleAndrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Private Members' motion and thank the Members of the Technical Group for raising a subject that could easily be pushed into the background and lost in the heat of other matters that come before this House and are of a more pressing nature.

In 1999, I was a new councillor and, like Deputy Byrne, we were on the newly formed Eastern Regional Health Authority when the direct provision system was introduced. It was brought in at that time because of an influx of asylum seekers into Ireland as the UK changed its rules on how asylum seekers were supported and treated.

Deputy Anne Ferris mentioned the matter on a European scale. The common travel area means that people can move freely between Ireland and Britain. We do not have a harmonised system across the EU so people can decide where they feel they might have the best opportunity as asylum seekers. The system therefore needs to be harmonised.

No matter what level or standard of accommodation is provided for asylum seekers, they are in limbo and will not stay there forever. At least, they should not expect to do so. The issue is how swiftly they can be processed through the initial asylum assessment, in addition to legal challenges which do occur more often than not. All those factors have to be addressed.

I welcome the fact that on being appointed, the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, visited some of the centres to see for himself the standards involved. The Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, has done likewise. Those in receipt of direct provision deserve better. I agree with Deputy McDonald on the issues of procurement and tendering. If current provisions for these people are not up to standard then providers, who are being paid for this service, should not be reconsidered. We have had no quality evaluation of how these centres are run. Some are good while others are bad. Some of the smaller ones seem to be better run than the others.

We are still faced with the issue of the length of time that people stay in these centres. We must address that matter. I hope the initial steps taken by the Minister and Minister of State will continue, so that a solution can be found. I agree with Deputy Anne Ferris that simply adopting this motion would only provide another sticking plaster, while not addressing the issue in its entirety.

Photo of Eoghan MurphyEoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and congratulate him on his appointment. Some of the things he has been saying on this issue since beginning his new job are very important. The direct provision system is a disgrace and it shames us as a nation and a people. It was one of the first matters that came across my desk when I was elected to Dublin City Council and I still deal with it weekly. It is appalling and is a form of institutional racism. We would not treat white Americans this way.

One person used to come in to me who had already been ordered to be deported. Every two weeks he went to the office where they said they were not deporting him that week, so he should come back in two weeks. That has gone on for years. He knows that if he goes home his wife will be at risk, but he is saying: "Deport me. Just do something."

Another person was lucky to find a benefactor to sponsor his M.A. course. When the home he was in found out that he was getting this education, they stopped giving him lunch. I had to go to the Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality to get his lunch service restored. It is disgraceful. I know the Minister of State feels the same and we need to do something about it. We cannot let ourselves get to the next general election without having addressed this matter properly. The only proper and fair way of doing it is with an amnesty. That will not be palatable to some but we should pick a period - four years or whatever it might be - and say that we have made a mistake. We need to treat these people better and tell them they are more than welcome in this country. It is amazing to see the difference for people who have come through the system and have had the chance to become Irish citizens. They are making a great contribution.

As a Government we will leave different legacies behind us in the four or five years we have, including economic ones. This question has to be tackled and resolved, however, and I think an amnesty is the only way to do it. I ask the Minister of State to consider it.

Photo of Regina DohertyRegina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Opposition Members for bringing this Private Members' motion before us, as well as the Minister of State for his interest in rectifying the situation that has existed for far too long.

I want to tell the House about a little fellow I became friends with in July this year. He is seven years of age and his name is Seán Daniel. He lived in Portlaoise for six years and was moved to a reception centre in my constituency in March this year. He has severe autism, special dietary needs and still wears nappies because he has not managed toilet training yet. His mother is abused in the most horrific way. If she does not toe the line and do what certain people want her to do in the reception centre, his food is withheld from her. She has special food given on a weekly basis so that she can cook for him because his dietary needs are so severe. His food is withheld from her, however, if she does not dance to the tune of the people in the kitchen of the reception centre.

During the summer, she got involved in an altercation with somebody in the kitchen because of the food. A guard allegedly assaulted her. Until she was intimidated to give blood in Drogheda so that he could prove there was nothing physically wrong with him as a result of her biting him during this alleged assault, they withheld Seán Daniel's nappies. He could not go back to school in September because he had no nappies, until he got a call from the school to say that the school would give him nappies. However, the school gives him only two nappies a day although he is seven. The woman is stitching the nappies together during the daytime so that she can dry them out and put them on him tonight or tomorrow.

There are plenty of issues surrounding these reception centres, including the fact that people are in them for far too long. In addition there are loopholes and we do not give them any money, liberty or the ability to work. All of that is horrendous but I will leave it aside for a second. The intimidation and abuse that is happening to this woman, who is on her own with her seven-year-old severely autistic child, is an absolute disgrace. When I reported the matter to the Child and Family Agency, the lady I spoke to rang the provision centre and spoke to the manager. The manger told her: "Oh God, no, that's not true. She gets her food every week and has been getting nappies for months." The woman from the agency rang me back and said I was not to worry about it because I was being told a lie. I have been up in this lady's house - I use that word very loosely - every week since July. It is not a lie. It raises more questions because the lady in the Child and Family Agency was quite willing to take the manager's response as gospel without investigating it herself. I have reported that to the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. This is wrong.

HIQA issued draft national guidelines this week for standards in our special care units, which are units which children attend as a last resort. I appreciate what the Minister of State is doing. In the interim, however, before the Minister of State's report group comes back - please God they will come back quicker than some of our other special working groups have done - the draft guidelines should be applied to reception and integration centres. A champion should be appointed for people who are going through years of processes that we are making them go through. Somebody should be given the responsibility to be their champion to whom they can go. Right now they have nobody, so they are coming to constituency offices like mine or Deputy Eoghan Murphy's.

The standards are appalling and there is a complete lack of care for human beings in this country. We talk about legacy issues in Ireland and say it was a different time and culture then. We say that in the past things were accepted because we did not talk about them. Today, however, we are doing exactly the same on our watch. The working group should take a wider view of the whole process. Immediate changes would make a real impact on the lives of people who are currently in limbo.

Photo of Ciara ConwayCiara Conway (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State cannot but be moved when he hears stories like those recounted by Deputy Eoghan Murphy and Deputy Regina Doherty. Parents will know that one of the nicest things is to be able to cook for one's children. These mothers, fathers and children have been stripped away from their home place and what they know because they were in fear of their lives.

Are we saying we do not believe these people? I know I would not choose to live in one room and to have food given to me that I could not give my children. Children are finicky eaters. There is not a mother in Ireland who does not try to coax her child with one food or another. A mother in a direct provision centre does not have that luxury. If the child does not eat, he or she goes hungry. The Minister of State knows this. The malnutrition of children in the centres has been written about and reported on by the Irish Refugee Council.

Have we learned nothing as a country? We have another institution that is creaking along. I am very glad that Deputy Pringle has tabled this motion. The Labour Party has spoken about this matter before. Now that we are in government, I am glad the Minister of State has been given responsibility for addressing this issue, along with his colleague the Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald. I welcome what the Minister of State is doing regarding the round-table discussions and reporting on how we can fix the system as a whole. However, in the here and now, there are practices that the Government can no longer stand over.

Deputy Doherty told a story about the welfare of a very ill child being played with as if in a game of ping-pong between the people trying to run the centre and the woman trying to rear him on her own in a foreign country away from her family. Such people come to my clinic every week. I refer to people who are in absolute turmoil because they do not know what is happening from week to week. Not only do they fear being returned to their own countries, but they live in fear here because they do not know when the knock will come on their door. They do not know how to plan for the weeks ahead. This brings instability to a parent and it manifests itself in the children in that they become shy, withdrawn and unable to cope in school. The children were born in Ireland and we owe them and their families an immediate solution to the kind of carry-on that is evident right around the country.

When I refer to families, I include single men, who are often placed in big, bulging hostels. There is one in my constituency on the quay in Waterford. There are men from all over the world put into dormitory-style accommodation. Some suffer from mental health difficulties and abuse alcohol, while others do not. They live in fear. They come to my office saying they have not slept in weeks. This is no way to treat anybody who comes to our shores looking for help.

As with Deputy Murphy, I have seen the transformation that happens when somebody in direct provision receives a red passport with a harp on the front of it. These people have so much to offer and bring to our society and communities. They are doing so already. I do not need to be convinced of that, nor does anybody. They enrich our communities and society. I echo Deputy Murphy's call for an amnesty. As a Government, we need to close direct provision once and for all and have an amnesty for those are caught in a system of our making. Although we were not in government when the system was introduced, we are now. My God, we had better do something about it.

6:55 pm

Photo of Tom BarryTom Barry (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue. There is merit in an amnesty-type approach at present because we simply cannot have people, and their children who were born here, in the country for so long without making a decision on their status. The problem is that we have never had a proper discussion on this. Why are there so many people in direct provision and why are they being processed so slowly? Are we looking for such a considerable burden of proof that it will never be achieved?

We need to work to a timescale and work out whether people's stories are genuine and whether Ireland has an obligation to take them in. We should remember that the system is not in place to take everybody in; its job is to take in the people who have absolutely no other refuge to go to. Perhaps we need to discuss this also. Do we take in everybody who wants to come here? I do not remember this discussion ever taking place. Personally, I believe we have an obligation to those souls who are crossing into Italy on a regular basis and dying of disease. We have an obligation to the Syrian people who are crossing into Turkey. Turkey has taken in more than 1.5 million people. We need to start examining this problem and being responsible Europeans. It is fine to condemn what is happening abroad, but we need to ask what we can do. The centres have probably reached their term and they need to be dealt with quickly. We need oversight.

I must raise the fact that the stories are not always negative. There are some really good people working in the centres. Only two days ago, I spoke to a chef who works in one of the centres. He was concerned about what we have heard and told me they were giving the residents the best of Irish food. He said he could understand the arguments of people who want to cook for themselves, but the practicalities of families cooking for themselves would make things very difficult as matters stand. Ireland is a food nation and produces food of the best quality. I am glad to say that the residents are at least getting three choices for dinner and lunch. I have to defend the food. The majority of the staff are doing the best they can to provide as good a living environment as they can.

Now that this discussion is taking place, will we talk about the matter sensibly? Will we process people who come to our shores more quickly? Have we got the gumption to refuse people we do not want to come here? There may be people who might not be an addition to our society and might be involved in terrorism or other practices; we do not know. We need to be aware of that; it is something we cannot inflict on our people. Taxpayers' money is paying for the system. If we have a proper discussion on it, the future will be better, not only for Ireland but also for the people who seek our help.

Photo of Eric ByrneEric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Nobody in this House could not be moved by the horrendous sight of the bodies of dead asylum seekers on the beaches. That so many have been sacrificed, even on the high seas, by unscrupulous human traffickers is a blight on the face of humanity. Men, women and children are being sacrificed by evil traffickers of human beings. Some of those trafficked find security in whatever land they arrive at. They are essentially searching for a better life.

In talking of refugees, I compliment successive Irish Governments on how professionally we handle what we call the programme refugees, namely, those from Bosnia and various other countries. Programme refugees are the genuine refugees who are being facilitated through the United Nations and relocated in various countries. We do a brilliant job on their behalf. The same cannot be said about our approach to those in direct provision. I have experience of direct provision. I stayed a night in New Ross and saw the terrible problems that arose, including those of single men having to share their rooms with another person of a different nationality, and perhaps of a different religion. We saw the difficulties associated with the dietary demands of the diverse groups in the centre. This creates nothing but tension and distrust. As people have rightly said, an element of mental illness sets in.

It is absolutely unacceptable that anybody could spend two, four, seven or eight years incarcerated in a direct provision building. What the hell is happening? Why can today's system not result in a decision in a period of less than seven to eight years? Why would anybody's case require processing over a two-year period? It is unbelievable. The Minister must ask whether the legal process is the problem. Is there an indefinite conclusion to the legal processes people can avail of?

It might be controversial to say this, but I believe it might be more humane for the State, rather than incarcerate a person for four, five, six, seven or eight years in a direct provision hostel, to make a decision quickly to facilitate or deport the person. There is nothing as horrendous as sitting out one's time in one of these hostels, wondering whether one's application for asylum will be accepted at the end of that time. Imagine being deported after seven or eight years. We should compare our system with what happens internationally. Surely, there are other systems throughout the world that are superior to ours. I appeal to the Minister of State to try to learn from our counterparts.

There are good and bad stories to be told on this issue. I am dealing with the case of a young Nigerian girl of 17 years of age, who notwithstanding the fact she is the care of the local health board, being an unaccompanied minor who had a horrendous childhood, achieved the highest marks in her school in her leaving certificate. The problem she now faces is that she has been accepted for the business, economics and social studies, BESS course in Trinity College, but because she will be 18 in December, she will be moved into direct provision God knows where. That is not a humane way to approach the issue of kids who have overcome such terrible difficulties. Ireland is her home and we must change the rules that could send her anywhere.

7:05 pm

Photo of Brian WalshBrian Walsh (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I compliment the Technical Group, in particular Deputy Pringle, on introducing this important motion, which has facilitated an important and constructive debate on this issue.

Any Member who has ever had contact with asylum seekers would agree the system is in need of urgent reform. The system is a mess and people are spending too much time in direct provision centres. In some cases I have come across, people have spent up to nine years in direct provision. The conditions asylum seekers must endure in these centres are appalling and the weekly payments they receive are derisory and an insult to those in receipt of them. In many ways, this payment is reflective of an outdated and inadequate system.

I welcome the appointment of the Minister of State to this role and was pleased to see him allocated with this portfolio because I know from what he has said here in the House and from reading some of his statements on this issue that he is passionate about the matter, has a genuine interest in making progress in this area and is sincere about dealing with it.

The system as it has operated for the past 14 years is unfit for purpose. We have treated occupants of these centres in a way that can only be described as shameful. Reflection on our history suggests we should know better as many countries around the world have welcomed Irish people with open arms over the years. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to protect vulnerable people who come to our State fleeing from their country. In recent times, a light has been shone on episodes in our nation's past when networks of immoral and dehumanising institutions were allowed to prevail against a background of indifference on the part of the State. The shameful details that emerged on Magdalen laundries and, more recently, mother and baby homes have shocked the nation and ought to weigh heavily on our collective conscience as we deal with asylum seekers. That those dark institutions were allowed to operate as and for as long as they did is an indelible black mark against us as a people and a State.

Our past failings should heighten our resolve to ensure that no such failings occur again. Regretfully, having listened to the contributions from Members on all sides, I must wonder whether we have adequately learned from our mistakes or whether we are in the process of failing another vulnerable section of society by consigning asylum seekers to a punitive existence behind the closed doors of direct provision centres.

I welcome the appointment of the working group and hope it does not delay in reporting back to the Minister of State so that we can move quickly and make progress on this matter.

Photo of John HalliganJohn Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to share time with Deputies Joan Collins, Clare Daly, Richard Boyd Barrett, Tom Fleming and Deputy Peter Mathews.

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Photo of John HalliganJohn Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I congratulate Deputy Pringle on bringing this important motion to the House. Many Deputies on the Government side of the House have made a compelling case for supporting this motion and having spoken to Amnesty International and other groups on the issue I will be bitterly disappointed if the motion is voted down. I will be particularly disappointed if the Labour Party Deputies vote against it.

It has been stated on a number of occasions that the rise in asylum applications has to do with the impression that the economy is improving across Europe. The number of asylum seekers has increased. The Irish Refugee Council has stated categorically that what we are now seeing is the biggest refugee crisis since the Second World War, but that the increase in asylum applications has nothing to do with an improving economy but with the horrendous and inhumane conditions millions of people suffer around the world, where human rights are non-existent, people have no religious or political freedom and there is no freedom of expression. Sentient human beings deserve a quality of life and where conditions are bad they strive to move on so as to better their lives and conditions.

Where do these people look to to achieve this? They look to the democratic process across Europe. They look to France, England, Ireland and other European countries. They have heard Ireland is the island of 100,000 welcomes and have heard how pleasant the Irish people are. Then they arrive here and we incarcerate them. There is a large group of students outside the Dáil tonight. None of these is a refugee, but they are all carrying a sign that says "Ten years in gaol". Essentially, this is what we are condemning human beings who seek asylum in this country to. We are here talking about people who are experiencing the type of life none of us would wish to experience, even in part. During the past week, I spoke to a chap whose brother had his two hands cut off due to the warfare taking place in parts of Nigeria between Christians and Muslims. Both of his grandparents were burnt to death. People like this chap had no choice but to come to Europe, to seek a democracy like that in Ireland in the hope they would be treated with respect and dignity, but that is not happening.

Civil servants should hang their heads in shame for the creation of these institutions and procedures. I know they were not introduced by the Minister of State or the previous Minister, but somebody set out the procedure for how people should live in these centres or institutions. These procedures were probably set up by somebody who never met an immigrant. That must be the case, because if they saw the conditions in which these people live, they would not prescribe those conditions. It is institutional racism.

If a situation arose in this country where thousands of people had to leave because of political, religious or personal persecution, it would be interesting to know whether they would be incarcerated for ten years if they arrived in England, America or Australia.

Looking ahead, what would we think if we imagined that is what might happen to them?

We cannot wait a year or even six months. The Minister of State must have visited some of these centres, as I have. He must have seen how children are being brought up, how they stand in line for their breakfast every morning and then stand in line for their dinner, and they do this for ten years, or from the time they can stand at three or four years of age. It is appalling and outrageous. The Minister of State should support the motion.

7:15 pm

Photo of Peter MathewsPeter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Halligan for giving me a minute of his time and I especially thank Deputy Pringle for bringing forward this Private Members' motion. Some years ago, I visited one of these direct provision centres and I was crushed to see what was there. It was an affront to human rights, an affront to human liberty, an affront to human dignity and it has to stop. It really has to stop. It is wrong to ask people who have already been so disadvantaged and crushed to live in a timeless vacuum, with the loss of dignity and all those things to which I have just alluded. It is just plain wrong. I was deeply saddened by it and I have not forgotten it, and that was a few years ago.

Photo of Joan CollinsJoan Collins (Dublin South Central, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the fact Deputy Thomas Pringle has brought this Private Members' motion to the Chamber. It should be made clear that Deputy Pringle brought this into the legislative process a year ago but did not have the opportunity to put it on the floor of the House until this week, so it is not just an issue of responding to the circumstances and the protests of asylum seekers who have come out in the community. I applaud them for doing that and for highlighting their plight and the despicable circumstances in which they are living.

It seems to be the case that despite abject apologies and expressions of shame about the inhumane treatment and incarceration in the industrial schools, the mental institutions, the Magdalen laundries, the mother and baby homes and the health service in regard to symphysiotomy, where the State outsourced its responsibilities to religious institutions and then forgot about them, we now have a repeat of the situation in direct provision centres for asylum seekers. The difference is that they have been outsourced to for-profit private companies. No wonder Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness has said it is a new scandal which will bring yet more international shame and yet another apology from the State.

Some 4,360 people, 1,700 of them children, are being forced to live in inhumane conditions of overcrowding, forbidden to cook their own food, with a family in one room with shared bathrooms, and people afraid to make complaints. It is an incredible situation for people to be living in this way in this country at this time. I listened yesterday to the story of the woman in Cork who protested that she was in the direct provision system for nine years with her two children, who have never seen their mother cook a family meal. It is an incredible situation. She has no idea when her application will be dealt with. In some ways it can be compared to internment without trial because people are in a situation where they do not know when their application will be processed or how long they will have to wait. It is like asking how long is a piece of string. They just do not know what is going to happen, and their children are in that situation as well.

These conditions are extremely detrimental to people's mental health and the healthy, rounded-out development of children. This is recognised by the Human Rights Council of the UN, which expressed concerns about the length of time people are in centres, the limits on freedom, the impediments to family life and the prohibition on working. The EU Commission on Racism and Intolerance has called for a complete review of the system by the special rapporteur on child protection, with all the organisations in Ireland concerned with civil liberties, migrant rights asylum seekers and so on. We know the system is not fit for purpose. The question is what to do about it and to act now.

The Minister of State said he has set up a working group, which is an excellent first step and all of the concerned groups are involved in that. He is not expecting the first report back until the end of the year, however, and in the meantime, these people are still in the same situation. I believe some of the suggestions Deputy Pringle has put forward for things that can be done immediately should be taken on board. For example, anyone in the system for more than six months should immediately be given the right to independent living, we should conform immediately with the norm across the EU by conceding the right to work after six months to those in direct provision, and we should establish independent complaints and inspection mechanisms. All centres should provide self-catering facilities, play space and study rooms for children, which are basic human rights for children. These are immediate measures which would greatly alleviate the present problems. In the longer term, we should move to specialised reception centres, operated on a not-for-profit basis, as recommended in the motion.

Many Deputies have made impassioned contributions about their direct dealings with people who are in the centres. We also have a huge housing crisis and we are talking about putting people into prefabs. It is just not on. There has to be a longer-term programme to deal with the long-term issues and immediate assistance put in place to deal with the immediate effects of homelessness and the direct provision situation.

Photo of Clare DalyClare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I, too, congratulate Deputy Pringle and strongly support the motion, which puts forward an immediate solution to this issue, which is a human rights-based, humane approach to an issue which has been ignored for far too long. The nonsense that used to be put forward that Ireland is an island of a thousand welcomes has certainly long been exposed. We are a country which has been quite happy over generations to send our young and our poor people to the ends of the earth because this country was not prepared to provide them with a decent standard of living. We were quite happy to send women who had children outside marriage as outcasts to other countries and expect those people to be taken in there. We expected our citizens, whom we were not prepared to look after, to be welcomed with open arms on other shores. We would hear it constantly said, "Sure everybody loves the Irish, isn't it great? Aren't we the people who built Britain? We're great workers", and all the rest. When people come here trying to earn a living for themselves and make a better life for their families, however, it is an entirely different matter.

It used to be said there was never any racism in Ireland, and there was not when there were no people from other countries who wanted to come to live here. Once they did, that situation quickly changed. The attitude of the State and the policies put in place by the State have been a huge contributor to that situation, primarily through the denial of people's right to work.

I believe the issues are much more starkly posed when we look at the scenario being faced by refugees and asylum seekers. Points have been made by other Deputies about the obstacles such people have to overcome - the horror in their own country causing them to flee here. They see Ireland as a safe haven, somewhere to build a new future. However, the decision to come to Ireland can have devastating consequences. This is graphically illustrated in the case of women in particular. Women are often held in direct provision centres in close proximity, for example, to an abusive partner from whom they cannot get away. Women and girls who are pregnant and seeking asylum in Ireland, as Niall Behan from the Irish Family Planning Association said, find themselves at the intersection of two state systems that deny them basic human dignity: the direct provision system, on the one hand, and our lack of abortion, on the other, both of which have been criticised by human rights bodies as violating human rights, causing discrimination and the stigmatising of people.

That was graphically exposed in the case of Miss Y, who was a resident in a direct provision centre. One would have to ask whether, had she been given access to greater support in the community, the outcome would have been different. It is the case that, because of that restriction, people have been forced to parent in a direct provision or reception centre. It is just not good enough.

The figures are available. Thousands of people, almost 2,000 of them children, are in temporary accommodation which was intended for six months but in which they have been living for an average of four years, in many cases for seven years and in some cases for ten years. Children are growing up in these places. Imagine spending four years out of work with no possibility of getting a job. Imagine trying to raise children on €19 with no possibility of that situation being bettered. Imagine overcoming all the sacrifices to become a victim in a society which keeps one isolated.

It is a system of State-sponsored poverty and is unjust. I do not see what we need to review. The facts are clear. Deputy Pringle has outlined the way in which we need to deal with it so we just need to implement that because all of the human rights bodies have pinpointed the detrimental effects on the health and psychology of children and adults who have lived in that situation. It is the same as the institutions of the past. It is a modern-day Magdalen laundry. Should we not be consistent? We have had all these redress schemes for the damage done to people who were institutionalised in the past. If we want to end that now, we must give an amnesty and allow people the right to work.

From a legal standpoint, depriving people of the right to work does constitute a violation of their privacy and right to family life. We lost an opportunity to address it in the Refugee Act 1996. We must deal with that issue now because the right to earn an income is not just about the extra income, it is about self-respect and integrating with other people. It has a social value far beyond a monetary one. One has a win-win situation here even while people are being decried as coming into this country as freeloaders. The State prevents them from working and then everybody blames them for not working. Meanwhile the attention is taken off the real people who caused the problem in the first place - the bank bailout, the speculators and the gamblers whose debts are being transferred on to the shoulders of everybody. It is a great diversion.

We should be welcoming more people here. We should be welcoming the diversity that this brings. In 2009, we resettled two prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. At the moment, there are 79 low-risk prisoners who have been awaiting release for years because the Americans will not allow them to be released into the US. We should take more. We have nothing to be afraid of. One would think that a country called the island of saints and scholars would be glad to invite people here and give them refuge and a safe haven. What has been going on has to stop.

7:25 pm

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Pringle for bringing this motion forward. It is long overdue that we have a discussion. For 14 years, we have had an indefensible and shameful system for dealing with vulnerable and poor people who have come to this country looking for refuge and help. Rather than give them refuge and help, we have imprisoned them in the most appalling circumstances and left them there with no hope. Most shamefully, we have allowed children to be brought up in these conditions - conditions that no parent in this House or anywhere in this country would tolerate for a second without screaming with outrage. Yet we have deemed it acceptable or have remained silent while this has continued for 14 years. Many children will never recover from the damage inflicted on them in these centres and not just kids. It is shocking that people are incarcerated in these situations; denied the right to work, integrate and participate meaningfully in society; starved of any sort of resources; and given a miserable €19. It is no wonder that depression, suicidal tendencies and mental health problems are rampant. Recently, we heard young women on the radio saying how they felt forced into prostitution in order to supplement the miserable amount of income they were given. Of course, a certain industry is building up around all of this for certain people - not all of the people - involved in direct provision. Certain people essentially see it as just a chance to make a profit. We have allowed this to go on until now and not acted upon it.

It is even more shameful and indefensible when one considers that there has been an acknowledgement that we committed a crime against single mothers, poor working-class children and people who lived in the mother and baby homes, Magdalen laundries and industrial schools and public apologies have been given. Yet we inflict the exactly the same system on poor people from other countries coming to this country looking for refuge and help. It is shameful beyond belief.

I welcome the tone of many speakers on the Government and Opposition side and some of the comments made by the Minister of State about the need to rectify this problem. I hope that with the expression of all that sentiment, we will solve this problem immediately because it cannot continue any longer. If we allow it to continue, we are allowing a criminal and immoral abuse of human rights - a theft of people's human rights - and the imprisonment of innocent people to continue. This is morally repugnant and indefensible so we must act. I hope the Minister of State and Government are committed to doing this.

There must be an amnesty for those who have been imprisoned in this system that everybody said was dysfunctional. We have all said here that this system was wrong and rotten. Therefore, we owe everybody in the system an apology and an amnesty as compensation for putting them through that suffering. That is a minimum requirement. Otherwise saying that it was wrong and that the system was dysfunctional but not then giving an amnesty to people who had to suffer this is a contradiction in terms. As a minimum, those who have been put through this system must get an amnesty. Otherwise we are punishing people who are innocent and whom we have failed.

We must say that institutionalised living - the system of direct provision - is totally unacceptable and must be abolished. We must give people who come to this country the right to work. If we have to assess their applications, they should be allowed to fully participate in society while this is being done so that they can contribute and so that no ammunition can be given to anybody who wants to claim that in some way they are sponging off the system - as obnoxious as that sentiment is. We must commit to abolishing direct provision and give asylum seekers the right to work, participate and integrate in our society.

One of the Fine Gael Deputies who acknowledged that we have to move in the direction of a reform asked whether this means we should have open borders. We have emigrated all over the world and even as it stands, the Irish State is fighting for the undocumented Irish in the US to have the right to stay and work there. How can we deny any less to the people who come here looking for asylum and to escape persecution or poverty? We should allow people to come here just as we have gone to other countries.

Photo of Tom FlemingTom Fleming (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I congratulate our two new Ministers of State and wish them well in their new roles. On 24 July 2014, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concern about the length of time people must stay in direct provision and the lack of an independent complaints mechanism in Ireland. The Government has given some commitments and in particular, the Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality appears minded to reform or reconstruct the manner in which asylum seekers are hosted in Ireland. The European Migration Network study on the organisation of reception facilities for asylum seekers which was published last May notes the varied nature of supports provided to asylum seekers across the EU. The reports note the wide disparities in provision of accommodation with some countries operating systems similar to direct provision, others permitting asylum seekers to find their own accommodation and some countries not providing any or minimal financial allowances.

Others set allowances near the same level as those available to citizens to ensure a dignified level of subsistence. The other important element is the complicated network of appeals systems and reviews they have to go through. There appears to be a lack of Judiciary and there is an urgent need to correct the situation, and get things moving in a better manner than is currently the case.

Given the past record of the country on how we institutionalised individuals in industrial schools, Magdalen laundries, mental hospitals, borstals etc., we should wonder to what extent we are serious about approaching proper reform of the system rather than permitting the warehousing of asylum applicants. There is an urgent need for an in-depth review to determine what can be reasonably done to ensure respectful protection of the core social and economic rights of people who are awaiting their determination for refugee status.

When direct provision was introduced in 1999 it was initially meant to provide shelter for six months until such time as applicants were granted refugee status or deported. The system has been unbelievably slow, dysfunctional and fragmented, and the legal process is drawn out. The average length of time for a stay in the direct provision system is three years and eight months. The statistics show that over 1,000 people have spent five years or more in the system, over 600 people have been in the system for seven years or more and a number of people have spent 13 or 14 years in the system.

The reality is that these people are living in conditions which are damaging to their health, welfare and general well-being. There is a need for a consultation process for all stakeholders, in particular asylum seekers currently in the system and those who were in it in the past. Children should be included in the process and we should get their opinions. It would be very interesting to hear the responses, and we may learn from them and get a better insight into the ridiculous conditions in which they live. We could see what can be done to ensure respect for and protection of the core social and economic rights of people who are awaiting the determination of their refugee claims.

The Ombudsman for Children, Emily Logan, has stated that the treatment of children living in direct provision centres for asylum seekers is an issue of ongoing concern and needs to be addressed urgently. She said, "[I]t was wrong children in many cases were spending their lives growing up in a system that is often inappropriate accommodation intended as a short-term solution." The reality is that over 1,600 children now reside in direct provision, sharing single rooms with their families in situations often in unacceptable situations whereby they have to share bathrooms with complete strangers.

A major factor which is detrimental to asylum seekers who are students is that they are practically prohibited from participating in third level education. This is serious discrimination because as a result of their financial situation they cannot further their education. We should never lose sight of the fact that these young children are, in many cases, resident in Ireland for their lifetimes and will be citizens of the country. It is very negligent of us to give them a start in life in a manner such as this. We may have to bear the cost of this at a later date, psychologically and otherwise. It may cost the State millions of euro and it is wrong from a human rights perspective.

7:35 pm

Photo of Gerald NashGerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone who has made a contribution to the debate on this important Private Members' motion. I am speaking on behalf of the Government when I say that everything that has been said over the past two days has been noted carefully and will serve to inform the discussions of the working group which the Government amendment to the motion commends to the House. I will not repeat what my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, said in his speech yesterday in support of the Government amendment, but the working group process, which is to be chaired by former High Court Judge Bryan McMahon, will afford a genuine opportunity to discuss this matter in a calm, considered and detailed way. This means that the recommendations or changes which come about as a result of this process will be evidence based, and thereby sustainable and workable for the people we all seek to represent.

The Government accepts the sincerity of all of the speakers in support of the original motion. This is a debate which needs to happen. It was commenced by my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, and in many respects has been enhanced by the views expressed by many Deputies in the House over the past two days. The tone of the debate has been a credit to the House and all Members.

Extreme views have been articulated across the floor over the past two days. It is a very emotive and emotional subject. I defy anyone not to be moved by the testimonies tabled by Members of all parties and none. All the points made require careful examination and will be carefully examined by the Government and the working group. This is why we have set up a working group comprising experts on the State and non-State side. They are the right people to conduct such an investigation. This does not mean that the process will be slow. I want to assure the House that this is not an attempt to fudge, delay or obfuscate what is a very important set of issues; quite the contrary, in fact.

The Government expects the membership and the terms of reference of the working group to be announced in the very near future. Once established, the Government will request its report within a short timeframe. This is essential. It represents a genuine opportunity to examine in detail and make recommendations on an issue which has become ever more prominent in public debate over recent times.

Like my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, I want change, not just as a public representative but as a human being. One of the largest direct provision centres in the country, Mosney, is in my constituency. I and my colleagues in government want to ensure that, in particular, the needs of families and children in the centre are met, not just those in centres now but also those who may arrive on our shores in the future. I want to ensure that the experience of childhood children have in direct provision centres is not the only experience of childhood they have, something which is all too frequently the case.

It would be unconscionable for me and most right-thinking people to allow a system constructed along current lines to continue unchecked. As a public representative and a member of Government, when a policy is found not to be working and not in the common good or interest it has to be reviewed and we have a responsibility to act, which we accept. As a citizen and human being I have a moral responsibility to call things as they are and as I see them. There are residents in direct provision centres whom I consider to be friends. They are people who I met in very difficult circumstances and represented them over a long period of time. I see how a system like this fails people, can shatter the human spirit and can damage human dignity, about which Deputy Mathews spoke eloquently.

The working group is the best place to examine the system and how we can change it to make it more humane and responsive to the needs of human beings. We owe that to the people and families about whom we are all concerned and whom we seek to represent. This House should allow the working group the time and space to do its job. I commend the amendment to the House.

7:45 pm

Photo of Mick WallaceMick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Thomas Pringle for moving the motion. It is something that should have been addressed a long time ago. It is disappointing that the new Government left it so long to even think about it.

In June this year, a representative of the Government, the former Tánaiste Deputy Eamon Gilmore, lobbied on behalf of 50,000 Irish citizens living and illegally working in the USA. He argued that these immigrants should be granted legal status so that they could be allowed to participate fully in American society. I support that appeal. However, when it comes to the treatment of asylum seekers in Ireland, no one from the Government is lobbying to grant legal status to these immigrants. Is our Minister content with the fact that the Government adopts a double standard on the treatment of immigrants? It is apparent that the Government's stance on migration is determined by the nationality of the immigrants and in which country they are immigrants. If the migration is of Irish citizens to another country, many of them helping to lower the unemployment statistics when they leave, the Government is all in favour of immigrant rights. However, here at home we have the hypocrisy of the Government withholding legal rights for asylum-seeking immigrants and their children, many of whom are Irish-born. They are placed in direct provision facilities where a process which is supposed to take months can take years. According to the Irish Human Rights Commission, it takes between five and ten years in many cases.

Ireland and Lithuania are the only two countries in Europe to have opted out of the EU's reception directive, the law which states that if a country has not given a decision on an asylum seeker's application for refugee status within six months, it must allow that applicant to work while a decision is awaited. The Minister, Deputy Francis Fitzgerald, is on record very recently as saying she completely rules out any possibility of giving asylum seekers the right to work. Will she reconsider that? I do not understand why she is so dogmatic about it. Is she afraid it will cost the State money? I ask her to reconsider, as this is a very negative policy for our Government to stick with. It would make a great difference if we allowed these people the opportunity to work. It is the absence of a right to work and an opportunity to integrate into society, contribute to it and feel like a valuable, dignified human being that is the root cause of the problems around this issue.

The Government says the reason for the long delays in making the final decisions on asylum seekers' refugee applications or immigration status applications is at least partly the fault of the asylum seekers themselves, who ask the High Court to conduct a judicial review of every decision at every step of the process. Each judicial review can take two or more years to be completed in the High Court. However, the full truth is that the State bears much of the responsibility. The first consideration as to whether an asylum seeker should be granted refugee status comes from international law, specifically the Geneva Convention. The first stage of deciding whether an asylum seeker is a refugee involves the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner. The commissioner's decision can be appealed to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, the decision of which can in turn be appealed to the High Court if the way in which it was arrived at was unfair - for example, where a decision was irrational in light of the evidence submitted or where too much or too little weight was given to certain evidence. After consideration of an individual's application for refugee status fails, there are further legal ways to seek permission to remain the State, including the granting of humanitarian leave to remain, which comes from Irish law, or the granting of leave to remain based on subsidiary protection grounds, which comes from EU law.

The State chooses this fragmented approach with many stages, each of which is judicially reviewable, as opposed to the single procedure adopted by every other EU state. The State's complex method and series of steps and decisions provides many opportunities for judicial review instead of just one. Because the decisions taken by the lower State bodies - that is, the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal - are so frequently ill-judged, they are easily challengeable in the High Court for failing to comply with basic rules of constitutional fairness. There is a high success rate when these decisions are challenged. Another reason the delay is attributable to the State is that it does not provide legal assistance or free legal aid at the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner or Refugee Appeals Tribunal stages. Thus, procedural unfairness occurs in these processes which would usually be challenged at the relevant time by an individual's solicitor. This procedural unfairness is then viewed as a weakness in the decision, which allows it to be challenged later in the High Court by way of judicial review. If the State provided free legal aid at those early stages, any issues of procedural fairness would be dealt with then and would not taint the eventual decisions arrived at.

While the Government is planning to change Irish law and introduce legislation for a single-procedure system, we have yet to see the detail of the legislation. It is generally considered a positive move as it would bring us in line with the rest of Europe and would certainly be welcomed. However, this will only apply to future applicants who arrive on our shores seeking asylum. The new single procedure will not apply to or help in any way the 4,000 people currently languishing in direct provision, of whom close to 1,500 are children. Many of those children were born in Ireland but do not have the right to Irish citizenship because of the change in citizenship law after the 2005 referendum. The only fair way to deal with these asylum seekers would be to grant an amnesty giving all of them permanent residency in Ireland, save in certain exceptional circumstances such as where a person has a serious crime record. I am not talking about driving offences, which some people have been hit for. This kind of amnesty would only apply to these 4,000 applicants and would be a recognition of the fact that the State has failed them. Most of us agree that has happened. The State's conduct in this regard has been assessed by many international and human rights bodies as a serious and continued breach of human rights law. A limited amnesty would not be a burden on the economy. It is a finite number of people comprising approximately 2,000 adults and their children. It would be symbolic, dignified and a healing gesture on the part of the State and Irish society in general, which would also have a very real and practical effect on the lives of these 4,000 people. The Minister has set herself very strongly against the idea of an amnesty for the 4,000, but I ask her to reconsider that also. If fairness is to apply, she must take another look at this. I realise she is worried about the cost that may be involved, but given that it is a finite number, we should give priority to human rights, dignity and fairness.

Photo of Thomas PringleThomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate over the last two nights. It has been very heartening for me to hear the contributions that have come from all sides of the House in condemning the system of direct provision. It is a very powerful message to send that there is across-the-board political support for the abolition of a system that is unjust, inhumane and completely wrong. Perhaps I should apologise to some of the Fine Gael Members in the House for expecting that politically they would be slightly more disposed to a hard-line approach to asylum seekers and direct provision. It was heartening to hear some of the very emotional contributions from some Members, particularly Deputy Regina Doherty, who gave a powerful example of how a seven-year-old child was treated at a so-called reception centre. She had a slight slip when she used the words "detention centre" rather than "reception centre". That encapsulates exactly what the direct provision system is.

I must remark that it is disappointing that the Minister with the executive power to deal with the system did not attend and contribute to the debate tonight. I have a great deal of respect for the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, who is genuine in her attempts to reform the Department of Justice and Equality and the justice system. It would have helped her to be here tonight to listen to the contributions of her party and Government colleagues across the board on the direct provision system and to hear what needs to change and the political support for that. It has become clear to me over the last two nights of this debate that there is a political will to deal with this system and reform it to end direct provision.

The blockages are within officialdom, the Civil Service. They are the ones who operate the system across the board.

It is interesting to know, having listened to some of the contributions, what is driving the mindset that allows the direct provision system to be supported. In his contribution the Minister of State, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, said we could not operate a system which left us open to being targeted. I do not believe the Minister believes that statement. In the debate last night Deputy Niall Collins of Fianna Fáil said we could not be seen as a soft target. The Sinn Féin spokesperson, Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, qualified what he was saying by stating his party was not advocating an open door policy. That is the mindset of the civil servants who operate the system. They have allowed it to develop and introduced it across the State. They have put 4,300 people in a situation where their human rights are being abused on a daily basis. Their right to a family life, dignity and self-respect is being denied across the board.

The motion is very reasonable. It provides for what will probably be the outcome of the working group process the Minister has started if it is operated properly, but why wait six months, one year or 18 months? The Minister should withdraw his amendment and accept the motion to allow us end the system once and for all and bring dignity to the people suffering under it. There are no floodgates waiting to be opened. There are no hoards of asylum seekers waiting in the middle of the Atlantic to come here looking for this open door policy. This policy is the result of a mindset within the Civil Service. As mentioned by a number of speakers, it is institutional racism. It is a system that is being operated in a racist way. There is political support across the board to end it.

I know that the Minister does not have the Executive power and that if it was in his gift, he would do it, but he must take the political support he has received tonight, ram it down the throats of the civil servants and show them that there is the political will which they cannot hold back or resist any longer. They have to change the system and do the humane thing because if they do not, in ten or 15 years time another Taoiseach will be standing on the opposite side of the House apologising on behalf of the people for what we all know is a system that cannot continue and that will destroy lives in the future if we allow it to do so. The Minister should take the support he has received from all sides of the House tonight and tell those back in the Department that the system will change from this point on.

Amendment put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 85; Níl, 28.


Tellers: Tá, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg; Níl, Deputies Thomas Pringle and John Halligan.

Níl

Amendment declared carried.

Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."

Question put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 85; Níl, 28.


Tellers: Tá, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg; Níl, Deputies Thomas Pringle and John Halligan.

Níl

Question declared carried.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.25 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 2 October 2014.