Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

As the Senator is aware we are developing a new piece of legislation to deal with residence, asylum and immigration issues. It had been my hope that it would have been published by now but it is part of the legislation waiting to be completed in the Attorney General's office. It is part of the Government's enormous legislative agenda and I have to take my turn with colleagues in the context of the different priorities. For my part this is priority legislation which will allow for a different approach in dealing with the issues of immigration and asylum.

The Senator strayed substantially beyond the question he put. One of the difficulties in this area is that there is not a single decision-making process. If an individual is refused asylum he or she can come back on another basis seeking to stay and there is a third basis on which one can seek to stay. If one is not happy with either of the legs of the process there is an appellate system, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, and there is also the issue of judicial review. Any person in the system for five, six, seven, eight or nine years is there because he or she made application for judicial review of some decision made during the process to the High Court. As a lawyer I take the view that individuals, if they feel their rights have been violated, are entitled to make applications to the courts and to have their issues properly adjudicated on. In so far as there are individuals in the system for the length of time the Senator has stated, it is because they usually have had all their applications refused at different stages and have taken a court application. There is an enormous backlog of these cases in the courts and dealing with some aspects of these cases often gets further delayed when issues are referred to the European court for adjudication.

Clearly, one of the difficulties in this area is that we have a number of individuals who seek asylum in the State who have genuine grounds for seeking asylum under the relevant international provisions in place and under our own domestic law. We also have a substantial number of people who are economic migrants and who present with stories seeking asylum which turn out to lack validity. There are individuals who adopt false identities, who pretend to come from troubled parts of the world when they do not. There are individuals who will claim to be in war zones and when the matter is further investigated it turns out they were in London, Birmingham or elsewhere when they alleged they were in the Sudan or some other troubled part of the world. This is a real problem in dealing with the asylum system.

As one who was very committed to human rights issues and constitutional issues for many decades before becoming a Minister, the practical difficulty in this area is the number of economic migrants who present false cases for seeking asylum, who manufacture histories that are untrue and who, essentially, block the system and create difficulties for the real asylum seekers. So far as there are difficulties in this area, they are spawned substantially by that problem. The difficulties are added to when children are born to them in Ireland who are innocent of their parents' conduct; that is, parents who have no valid reason to seek asylum and who have concocted and fabricated stories and because of the length of time in the system the children establish roots here. We need a more efficient and better system for dealing with applicants. That can only be fully in place when the new legislation is enacted. I hope it will be published later this year and that it will be processed swiftly.

The direct provision system is not ideal but it is a system which facilitates the State providing a roof over the head of those seeking asylum or seeking other grounds to be allowed, on humanitarian grounds, to stay in the State. It allows the State to do it in a manner that facilitates resources being used economically in circumstances where the State is under financial difficulty.

I do not claim that all direct provision facilities offered an ideal service in the past, but the system now includes a process of oversight of the properties in which direct provision is provided, as well as a complaints system. I wish to be very clear on this point. As Minister, I will not tolerate within the system any individual being discriminated against, racially abused or threatened in any shape or form. Within the context of the direct provision system, my officials have suggested to individuals who are providing facilities that they be upgraded where they are not proving adequate.

The Senator asked how many properties currently managed by NAMA are being used as accommodation centres for asylum seekers under the direct provision system. That question is based on a misapprehension as to the nature of the contractual relationship between the Reception and Integration Agency, the Department of Justice and Equality and those centres providing full-board accommodation to asylum seekers. The RIA is responsible for the accommodation of asylum seekers in accordance with the Government policy of direct provision and dispersal. As of today, there are 4,707 persons accommodated in 34 centres across the State. Details of these centres and the numbers being accommodated can be found on the RIA website. Seven of the centres are State owned, that is, while they are managed by private contractors under contract to the RIA, the land and buildings are owned by the State. The remaining 27 are commercially owned and operated.

The question of whether any commercially owned asylum accommodation centre is managed by NAMA is not relevant to the RIA. In fulfilling its general accommodation responsibilities, the latter does not own, lease or rent premises from commercial contractors. Rather, it contracts in a comprehensive range of services and facilities, including accommodation, housekeeping and so on, for a fixed sum over the period of a contract. It is a condition of contract with the RIA that the contractor has good title to the centre, but this does not specify either owning, renting or leasing the building concerned. The finance mechanism, whether loans or otherwise, used by the contractor for the provision of the service to the RIA is a matter solely for the contractor.

On the question of whether NAMA can divulge details of any property it may hold as security or where an enforcement action has been taken by the agency against a property, these issues are addressed on its website. My concern, as Minister, is that certain standards are maintained in direct provision centres such that the persons residing there are provided with accommodation that is reasonable and with food and other services as necessary. I wish we had a different system. In the current financial climate, however, there is no alternative. If, for example, the State were to close down direct provision, it would then have to fund the renting of apartments or homes by individual applicants, many of whom are economic migrants rather than genuine asylum seekers. I emphasise that some are genuine asylum seekers. It is not for me to pass judgment on any individual; we have a process for doing that. The State would inevitably incur enormous additional expense from a requirement to provide funding for renting properties and everything else that is necessary to maintain a home and feed a family.

I accept that the system is less than ideal, but it is one which, within the current resources of the State, offers a practical method of providing a roof over the head of individuals within the system. If we resolve our problems in this area such that all applicants finally have a determination and outcome, I would like then to have a system where all applications are determined within a maximum of six months. This will ensure that those residing unlawfully in the State are deported in a timely manner and those entitled to asylum or leave to remain for other reasons are facilitated in getting on with their lives in the shortest possible timeframe. It is not possible for that to happen, however, until we have a new legislative base. We must deal very carefully with these matters in order to ensure that people who are in the State unlawfully are subject to deportation. If that does not occur, it will be to the considerable disadvantage of those who seek to come here for economic reasons and who make proper use of our visa application process. The State would otherwise be overwhelmed by many thousands of economic migrants with no valid reason to come here and claiming to be asylum seekers.

Since taking office my Department has put in place systems which ensure that most cases are now processed extremely quickly and efficiently, in contrast to what happened in the past. However, the Senator is correct that a number of people have been awaiting a determination in their case for many years. Direct provision is the only way in which the State can afford to deal with these numbers at this time.