Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim céad fáilte roimh an Aire. The Minister has probably answered more Adjournment matters on this issue than any other in the last two and a half years between me, Senator van Turnhout and others, so he is aware that we are very concerned about the issue, not without foundation. I commend the Taoiseach's nominee Senators on bringing forward this debate, particularly Senator van Turnhout. I also commend the Fine Gael spokesperson on justice, Senator Conway, who has taken a proactive role in ensuring this debate has happened. This is probably the most significant debate I have been involved in since I have been here in the last two and a half years. We have a chance to make a real difference here tonight. The 4,600 people in direct provision are listening in and noting what is happening here tonight and are very concerned.

The Minister inherited an appalling system and a backlog in the courts, which was part of the problem in that it was taking so long to process asylum applications. He has taken steps on that issue and I recognise that he has decreased the backlog, but he has acknowledged there is a long way to go. A number of forces are coming together on this debate on direct provision. We are examining the legal scenario where the High Court challenge has come forward. We have seen the Northern Ireland High Court decision not to return a Sudanese family to direct provision in the South because it was not in the best interests of the children. That is a damning indictment of the system.

I am a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions and have heard first-hand the former Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly, express concerns about the system, particularly on the lack of independent oversight. People have said there are visits and a certain amount of oversight but that is seen as the people who are administering the system investigating themselves. Her concern was that there needs to be an independent complaints system for people within the system and independent oversight.

One of the major flaws of the system is that it was privatised from day 1. I do not condemn any individuals in the system but I was struck recently when I noticed an advertisement by one of the companies involved in direct provision. It was talking about a completely different line of work, pitching for cleaning contracts in State organisations. The ethos of many of the people running these centres is not about looking after the people in the centres but about running a facility. As Senator Conway said, we visited two centres in Galway and the Department officials and people in the centres were very courteous to us but we were all struck by the previous careers of the people involved. Two people running one of the centres are former bank managers and somebody running the other centre is a former hotel manager. That tells us much about the type of system we have.

It would be more appropriate if the centres were State-run or if there were an NGO involvement in running the system. I am concerned that the people running the system are dealing with people who may come from a war-torn or a very difficult background and who may have serious mental or social issues. The people running the centres are not given enough training and are not equipped to deal with the complexity of the situations they are in. It is a serious issue that there is no legislative basis to the system. I welcome our guests in the Gallery.

As has been previously stated, Senator Conway and I visited Portugal to examine the Portuguese system. We could not transpose the Portuguese system to an Irish scenario but it shows there is a different way of doing things. It dispelled many of our fears that if we had a different system, a flood of people would come in. That has not been the Portuguese experience.

From listening to the testimony of people in direct provision there is a sense that people who come into the Irish asylum system are guilty until proven innocent. It is quite combative and they feel interrogated as soon as they arrive. On questioning people in the Portuguese scenario, the NGOs and department of justice officials work together on point of entry from day 1. The system is much more about hearing the stories of the people coming. Quite a large number of people are turned away at point of entry, which seems fair, but people are given leave to stay if it is felt that their case is plausible.

We need to dispel a number of myths about the people in asylum in Ireland. I have heard horror stories saying people are milking the system, most of them do not have bona fide cases, many of them are troublemakers who have been involved in criminality and they get involved in criminality here, etc. This is the kind of rhetoric we hear. I was happy that the people from the Reception and Integration Agency, RIA, and the management in the centres dispelled that. They said the vast majority of people in the system are model citizens, never give any trouble and are not involved in criminality, and they are very supportive of them.

Serious issues have been raised about adults sharing rooms, the uncertainty of the system and the length of time people are there. Some of the people have great skills. I have met physicists, musicians, bank managers and vets who have been in asylum. The fact that they are not upskilling or using the skills they have is soul-destroying for them. It is important to quote some of the asylum seekers I have met and what they have said to us about the system. One lady I met last week said:

We did not commit a crime. We came here seeking help. When you are an asylum seeker you are a nobody.

There are situations where a mother, father and three children are in the same room. I have been on holiday with my children and I find it very difficult over a weekend to spend that much time in the same room with my children, but people have been six, seven or eight years in that situation and that is very difficult. There are also issues around the conjugal rights of a couple in such a situation, and how they can have their own privacy. Children ask their parents, "Why are we here?" "Why can we not go?" "We have seen other people move on; why are we not moving on?" People are saying they have suffered enough. Children are being bullied and called names in schools.

One lady said, "We all have our dreams, but this is killing our dreams." Many people are dying inside and they are traumatised by the wait. There are major issues here and the Minister is aware of them. The single males in the system also have their issues. One can imagine being a 25 to 35-year-old single person who has to share a room with three other people for years on end. Major issues have been highlighted.

I welcome the cross-party support for this motion. We have a chance to do something. I would welcome immediate action on this issue. We must examine the EU reception directive, the right to work and the right to education. The Immigration, Residence and Protection, IRP, Bill must be brought forward more quickly. We must examine issues of integrating asylum seekers from the point of entry, the role of NGOs in individual cases and being in a support role. Funding from many NGOs has disappeared in the last number of years and that independent oversight is a very important issue. I could go on all night and I will certainly bend the Minister's ear again, as I have done to most of the Ministers who have come in here, and I will continue doing so unless we see action.