Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, to the House. I also welcome the opportunity to have this debate. I commend Senator van Turnhout and her colleagues in the Taoiseach’s nominee group because it is an important debate to have. I further thank the Minister and the Government for not tabling an amendment. As Senator Power said, it is appropriate that we would take a constructive cross-party approach on the issue. This is exactly the type of issue we should be able to constructively debate in such a way in the Seanad. It is good to do so just after we have had a fulsome debate on Seanad reform with the Taoiseach. This is a model of how things might be done. It is particularly appropriate on an issue such as this that we do not take a partisan approach along party-political lines.

It should be a matter of great shame to all of us that we have had a system of direct provision in place for 14 years, since November 1999, in which there may well be abuses. We are certainly conscious of inadequate facilities, at a minimum. There have been many reports and official criticisms of the direct provision system. The Minister, when in opposition, voiced criticisms also. Rightly, people are critical of the system. Former Ombudsman Ms Emily O'Reilly stated in July of this year that direct provision imposes a significant cost in terms of impact on physical and mental health, family, relationships and the ability to participate in society. She cited a particular case that she said would have been a major scandal had it happened in the case of an Irish citizen's family. It was a case involving the refusal by the HSE to pay supplementary welfare allowance to a mother of two in direct provision in a hostel. One of her children had attempted suicide. The child was put into care but the family remains separated because the woman was denied a welfare payment.

The FLAC report from 2009, which looks back over ten years of direct provision, states direct provision entails a flawed system and that is has failed to protect adequately the rights of those seeking asylum and protection in Ireland and should be abolished. It made practical recommendations as to how the system could be improved if it were to be retained. It is a matter of great concern and shame to all of us that the system continues to be in place. We need to examine practically how we can best reform it, if we are not to abolish it. The motion tabled by the Independent Senators is a really practical and constructive one because it seeks to address this very practical concern.

Let us examine the numbers. There has been a change and an improvement over the 14 years in that we now have much smaller numbers in direct provision. I am interested to note that the numbers have fallen since the figure in the Independent Senators' motion, 4,624 residents, was published. The figure is now 4,367 residents. Admittedly, it is not a very great reduction. The RIA report of 2012 states that in that year there were 4,841 persons accommodated in direct provision. This, in itself, marked a decrease of 11% from the same date in 2011. There certainly have been reductions in numbers, which is very welcome. However, the real concern, which the Minister shares and which is very honestly expressed in the report of the RIA, is the length of time for which people remain in direct provision. By the end of 2012, almost 60% of those in direct provision had been there for more than three years, as we have heard. The average length of stay, according to the report, is just under four years, or 45 months. The detailed figures suggest that over 400 people were resident in direct provision for seven years or more at the end of 2012. These are the really shocking figure on delay.

The motion very rightly pinpoints issues associated with children in direct provision. We know that approximately 1,700 persons in direct provision are children under the age of 18. The RIA figures suggest that one third of those in direct provision are single adults, but two thirds of the 4,300 people in direct provision, or 66%, are in family units. It is really the people in family units about whom the concerns must be most serious. The issues Senator Fiach Mac Conghail spoke about so eloquently, including privacy and normal family routines, are particularly at issue regarding children in direct provision. In the past, I have worked with groups that are particularly concerned about the plight of unaccompanied minors. I acknowledge there have been improvements in the conditions of unaccompanied minors, namely, children who are not living in a family unit and who are clearly the most vulnerable. Great efforts have been made to ensure that there are supports and protections for all children resident in direct provision centres. The RIA sets out in quite a lot of detail the measures that have been taken. However, we still should be examining in a practical way how we can address real concerns about inadequate supports and provisions for children who are currently in direct provision, many of whom have clearly been in direct provision for many years. A colleague alluded to the case highlighted in the newspapers today, that is, the case of the child who was born in a direct provision hostel and who, at the age of eight, was still there. These are real concerns about real children whose circumstances we need to examine now.

Is it possible, in the short-term, to consider moving families with children out of direct provision centres into independent accommodation? To be practical, we should at least examine the cases of those who have been in direct provision for more than three years. By way of pointing out an exceptional figure, the RIA says nearly 60% are in direct provision for over three years. Mine is a practical suggestion. Senator Power referred to the issue of the right to work of people who have been in the system for so long. Work would ensure they would not be a burden on the State. That could be a factor also.

The Minister stated a number of times that he will be introducing an amended immigration, residence and protection Bill. Clearly, in the longer term, that must be done to introduce a streamlined process for the resolution of asylum claims. The bigger picture, of which direct provision is just a part, is that we have a very poor record of positive decisions being made on asylum claims. A very low number of claims have been upheld over the years. There are serious problems with the mechanisms for determining asylum applications, which problems have been well publicised. A large number of judicial reviews of the process have been before the courts. Clearly, in the longer term, this matter needs to be addressed. I am delighted the Minister will be doing so. He is committed to it but there have been unfortunate and unavoidable delays in bringing forward the new legislation. In the short term, let us examine some practical ways to support and provide assistance to families with children in direct provision for a very lengthy period. If we do not do so, we will be facing future scandals and State apologies, as others have said.