Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Ach an oiread le mo chomhghleacaithe, ba mhaith liom tréaslú leis an Taoiseach as ucht an leithscéal a gabhadh inné, lá stairiúil do na mná a d'fhulaing ins na hionaid Magdalen. Céim dhearfach chun cinn í sin agus tá súil agam go leanfar leis na moltaí a cuireadh os comhair an Tí inné. I also welcome the full apology offered by the Taoiseach yesterday. That apology is extremely apt and a recognition of the great campaign in which the women who were kept in the Magdalen laundries have engaged. I hope the plight of those who were put into the Bethany Home in Summerhill and also that of the survivors of symphysiotomy will be taken into consideration and that their cases will be dealt with swiftly also.

I wish to draw a slight analogy in this matter. The Taoiseach's apology on behalf of the State is welcome. However, on numerous occasions during my two years as a Member of this House I have outlined my hope a similar apology will not be required from a future Taoiseach in respect of the direct provision system. I have grave concerns about the system of direct provision and I am of the opinion that it must be reviewed. Coverage in the press this morning indicates that some ¤655 million was paid to the private companies which ran the direct provision system during the past ten years. These companies have unlimited status and, therefore, we are not in a position to discover the level of profits they have made. These profits were made on the backs of people kept in conditions that were far from satisfactory from a civil rights perspective.

I appreciate that the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, is processing asylum applications faster than his predecessors. However, organisations such as the Irish Refugee Council continue to raise serious questions about the conditions which obtain in the direct provision system. The Ombudsman has called for oversight of the organisations which administer the asylum system. A debate is required on the direct provision system in the light of the new information to which I refer in order that we might discover the level of profits the companies involved are making. Such a debate might also be of assistance in discovering whether there is a better way to deal with asylum applications and with those who are obliged to engage with the system. I sincerely hope it will not be necessary for the State to issue an apology to these individuals at some point in the future.