James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

He is very welcome. I recognise the tie. I am responding on this topic on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality. The question asked by the Senator presupposes that there must be a specific legislative underpinning for the provision of State services to persons who otherwise would not be entitled to such services. Legislating for legislation's sake is unwise. If a case is being made for a change in how asylum seekers are accommodated, which is a view that the Senator has expressed on a number of occasions, that is an issue for policy in the first instance rather than legislation.

The direct provision system ensures the delivery of services alongside legislative provisions which would otherwise specifically prohibit asylum seekers from being provided with the basic necessities of life. For example, asylum seekers cannot work under section 9(4)(b) of the Refugee Act 1996, cannot access rent allowance under section 13 of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2003 and are not entitled to a range of benefits, including child benefit, as they are deemed to be not habitually resident under section 246(7) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005.

As an administrative system, direct provision is unique in this State but as a result of it no asylum seeker has ever been left homeless. Clearly the system is not without its faults but in the 13 years of its existence over 51,000 asylum seekers have been accommodated under it. Asylum seekers receive nourishment on a par with, and in some cases superior to, that available to the general population. They receive a health service on the same basis as Irish citizens and in many cases the service is far superior to what is available in their countries of origin. Children of asylum seekers are provided with primary and secondary education in the local community on the same basis as the children of Irish citizens. The system of direct provision is not unique to Ireland. Many other countries operate similar systems for meeting the reception needs of asylum seekers and all face challenges which are broadly similar to the issues arising here.

There are no cheaper alternatives to the direct provision system. If we were operating a system which facilitated asylum seekers in living independent lives in individual housing with social welfare support and payments, the cost to the Exchequer would be double what is currently paid under the direct provision system, even discounting the additional pull factor this would entail.

This was a key finding in the value for money report in 2010.

Allowing asylum seekers access to the full array of welfare and housing benefits would run a real risk of resulting in a large upsurge in economic migrants masquerading as asylum seekers coming here in the expectation of accessing these services. Furthermore, in respect of any major change of policy, we have to take account of the common travel area between Ireland and the United Kingdom which facilitates free movement between the jurisdictions.

It must be borne in mind that the persons residing in direct provision accommodation are here for a specific reason, namely, to claim international protection from the State. This entitlement is protected by international obligations which the State has entered into and by a comprehensive national and EU legal framework and accompanying administrative processes which govern the processing of protection applications.

The Minister acknowledges that there is an issue with the length of time applicants spend in direct provision accommodation. While not suggesting applicants are not entitled to the protection of the courts and due process, a consequence of frequent recourse to the courts to challenge decisions in these legislative processes is an extension of the length of time spent in direct provision accommodation. This underlying problem does not arise from a lack of legislation - quite the opposite. There are many reasons applicants spend lengthy periods in direct provision accommodation. I have referred to legal challenges as one reason. Undoubtedly, another significant issue is the cumbersome and multi-layered legal protection process in the State. There is a clear imperative to change and radically reform that process and the Minister is committed to introducing it.

As the Minister has stated, he intends to republish a revised immigration, residence and protection Bill which will substantially simplify and streamline the existing arrangements for asylum, subsidiary protection and leave to remain applications. It will do this by making provision for the establishment of a single application procedure in order that applicants can be provided with a final decision on all aspects of their protection applications in a more straightforward and timely fashion, thus reducing the length of time they spend in the direct provision system.

Pending the enactment and commencement of the new legislation and with a view to improving processing, the Minister proposes to introduce new arrangements for the processing of subsidiary protection applications in the light of recent judgments in the superior courts. His Department, in consultation with the Attorney General's office, is developing a new legislative and administrative framework for the processing of current and future subsidiary protection applications. This work is being given high priority and applicants will be advised of the new arrangements as soon as possible. In the meantime, the system is overseen by the Reception and Integration Agency of the Department of Justice and Equality. The RIA is subject to the same Civil Service obligations of fairness in the implementation of policy as any other area of government in implementing a scheme, statutory or non-statutory. It is worth noting that since the Minister took office, the number of persons being accommodated in direct provision accommodation has fallen significantly, by approximately 1,000 or 25% in the period in question.