Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move:

That Seanad Éireann–- notes the continuing operation of the ‘Direct Provision’ régime applying to those persons seeking asylum in the State;
- notes recent Reception and Integration Agency data which shows that the average length of application process for an individual asylum seeker is 48 months and that an average stay in the direct provision régime is 52 months;
- notes that, with the exception of Lithuania, Ireland is the only EU member State to deny asylum seekers the possibility of obtaining employment;
- notes the provisions of Article 4 and Article 7 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and the rights recognised therein of all persons in the State;
- recognises that, as a signatory to the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, Ireland is obliged to ensure that accommodation centres for asylum seekers in direct provision are ‘adequate’;
- recognises that Ireland, as a signatory of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, should ensure the availability of services to assist persons fleeing torture in their home countries, in accordance with the guidelines published by the United Nations Committee Against Torture;
- affirms that those who arrive in this State fleeing persecution, indiscriminate violence, war and torture should be accorded respect for their human dignity and fundamental human rights and should be housed and treated accordingly; and
- commends the report prepared by the Free Legal Advice Centres entitled ‘One size doesn’t fit all’, which highlights many of the serious issues affecting the health and welfare of asylum seekers within the direct provision system;and calls on the Government–- to ensure that the environment of each direct provision reception centre is such as to ensure the security, safety and comfort of each resident;
- to ensure that full consideration is given to Ireland’s international legal obligations by the newly established Review Group for Direct Provision in its work;
- to take measures to establish female-only and family-only reception centres so as to ensure the protection of children and due regard for the rights of families;
- to grant asylum seekers the right to seek and secure paid employment, subject to reasonable conditions;
- to provide, or ensure the provision of guidelines, to ensure appropriate treatment for survivors of torture; and
- to establish immediately a review mechanism for those people who have been housed in direct provision for four years or more, with a view to allowing such persons compassionate leave to remain in the State.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire go dtí an Teach freisin. I also would like to welcome the various guests in the Visitors Gallery from the Mosney and Montague reception centres, as well as representatives from the Spiritan Asylum Services Initiative, SPIRASI, and the Jesuit Refugee Service and others who are engaged by this important issue.
This is not the first time that the direct provision regime has been debated in this House. The regime has been in place for nearly 15 years, during which it has visited significant suffering and degradation on those people who have had the ordeal of living in the system and those unfortunate enough to find themselves still trapped in the bleak limbo of direct provision. It is a matter of great concern and shame to all of us that the Government continues to defend the operation of the system in practice and in principle, although I acknowledge where the Minister of State’s sympathies lie which he has expressed clearly. It gives me cause to wonder whether the State is letting people languish in the system, so as to deter other possible arrivals in the country. If that were the case, then it is immoral and unacceptable. If the system is designed to effectively treat people as human shields against a feared influx of immigrants, then it is truly disgraceful and a perverse course of action when one considers the war zones from which some of these applicants come.
There are currently 4,353 asylum seekers in 34 centres across the State under contract to the Reception and Integration Agency, RIA, with 727 new entrants to the direct provision system between 2012 and 2013. Between 2005 and 2013, the RIA has spent €690 million on the direct provision system. Looking beyond the simple statistics, it is the system's treatment of children that I find particularly abhorrent. None of the children in the system are responsible for their situation. They are forced to grow up in conditions of extreme abnormality. No civilised country should stand over this, in particular considering our recent constitutional amendment on children's rights. It is abnormal for a child to grow up in a situation where their parents cannot work to give them the basic necessities of life or not to know what it is like to have a family pet because of the way the system operates. This brings home the bizarre nature of this existence for so many. Addressing the immediate concerns raised today should not prevent the Minister making a principled commitment to abolish the direct provision system in its entirety, although my motion does not go that far.

Ireland has most recently been criticised by the UN Human Rights Committee. Although I find that committee somewhat corrupt in its direction on some issues, I nonetheless note its criticisms of Ireland on direct provision. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the UN Committee against Torture have levelled serious criticisms of our State in its treatment of people seeking asylum. Reports have noted the unreasonable periods of time which asylum seekers have spent in the direct provision system and have expressed concern at the potential negative impact the policy has had on the welfare of asylum seekers. They highlighted in particular the lengthy process and the poor living conditions.

It is a matter of concern to me that conditions seem to vary a great deal from one reception centre to another. Some have the ability to give people a key to their own room and their own family space while others require people to live in close quarters and share rooms with people from another country and another culture whom they never met before, with possible consequences for their sense of security and safety, and certainly with consequences for their sense of human dignity which is not respected in such situations. Joining the concerns of the United Nations, Council of Europe commissioners for human rights have queried our approach to asylum seekers. In 2011, the former commissioner, Thomas Hammarberg, noted the lack of progress made on the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill and encouraged the State to update the law as a matter of urgency.

In addition to the concerns of the UN and the Council of Europe, we have had criticism closer to home, perhaps most damningly, from the Northern Irish High Court in August last year, in the case of B. and C. Mr. Justice Stevens ruled an applicant family from Sudan seeking subsidiary protection in Northern Ireland could not be returned to this State under the Dublin II regulation as sought by the UK Border Agency, because he noted the significant hardship asylum seekers in Ireland face, including their inability to work on pain of criminal sanction, the low rate of subsistence allowance, communal accommodation, meals, a hostile environment towards family life, isolation and health problems.

Last Sunday night in Portlaoise I spoke to a person who week after week has to spend more than 30% of her allowance on prescription charges. These amount to €7.50 out of a payment of €19.10. We know how prescription charges roll on from week to week and they are not just a once off. This may seem a minor issue but it illustrates how awful the system is for people. Mr. Justice Stevens held that the best interests of the applicant children would not be protected if they were returned to the direct provision system here. This should make troubling reading for any Minister. He noted that if the applicants were returned to Ireland their mother would be unable to work in the Republic but could possibly work in the North. The family members would be forced to live in a communal direct provision hostel in the Republic but in Northern Ireland they would have their own accommodation and budget and could cook their own meals. The minor children, B and C, could develop their own sense of belonging and separate identity in Northern Ireland, which they could not do in direct provision centres in the Republic of Ireland. The judge noted there are significant physical and mental health issues among asylum seekers in Ireland due to the significant amount of time they must spend in the system.

As I stated, comparing the various centres where people are accommodated one sees some can provide basic amenities such as a key, while in others people live in close quarters. Is the Government doing this on the cheap? On what basis is it decided to use one particular centre or another? I would be very worried if financial reasons were invoked to deprive people of a bare minimum of respect for their human dignity that they might at least enjoy in a better centre. It is shameful that findings such as the above were made by our neighbours on this island, and it is an indictment of the manner in which direct provision operates that a High Court judge in the North would have such a scathing criticism to make about how we protect vulnerable children in this State. One year on we await the outcome of legal challenges mounted in our courts.

Family and female friendly centres are essential and this is the first reform I propose. It features in the motion. This would ensure the protection of children and due regard for the rights of the family. I do not need to recite our constitutional provisions on the family. During my recent visit to the centre in the Montague Hotel in Emo, a point raised again and again by those I met was the length of time asylum seekers must endure living in a state of limbo in the centres. I saw conditions whereby a family of two adults and two children were expected to share one room accommodation. This type of living arrangement is what we once had in rural cottages and the urban slums which prevailed in Ireland in the 19th century.

It was not healthy then and it certainly is not healthy now. The lack of privacy can lead to quarrels and occasionally violent incidents due to the lack of space. The most obvious element missing is respect for human dignity. This system robs people of that. People in jail who also have rights at least have a date on the door. Many people in the direct provision system do not have that certainty about what will happen to them in the future. That is a source of enormous stress and is not good for the their mental well-being.

The Government-appointed Special Rapporteur on Child Protection, Dr. Geoffrey Shannon, recommended that the system should be examined with a view to establishing whether it is detrimental to the welfare and development of children and, if appropriate, an alternative form of support and accommodation to be adopted that was more suitable for families, particularly children. The idea that a family would be denied the space to have family time with children, to cook a meal for their children, to have a normal relationship between parents, and between parents and children, is remarkable. It does not work in this day and age and it should not have worked in any day and age.

A key measure for reform which ought to be adopted immediately is the establishment of an independent complaints mechanism through the Ombudsman for Children, although my motion does not deal with that today. A simple amendment to section 11 of the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002 would give the ombudsman's office the power to investigate asylum-related matters. That would go some way towards showing a changed approach from Government.

The treatment of women in the system is deplorable. There are several male-only reception centres but there are none which provide solely for women. Many women who seek asylum in the State are fleeing the most gruesome and unimaginable conditions, sometimes involving sexual abuse or rape, and for those victims to be placed in a system where there is an underlying fear, perhaps in some cases of a recurrence of abuse, is shocking.

I will refer briefly to the three other issues in the motion on which I want to focus, one of which is the right to work. I understand people's concerns about the challenges our economy faces but the right to seek work is a core element of human dignity. Asylum seekers in this country come with a variety of talents and a multiplicity of skills. Lithuania is the only country apart from Ireland that does not grant the right to seek work at some stage during the asylum process. That must change, and that is not mentioned in the Government's amendment.

I call on the Government to provide guidelines to ensure appropriate treatment for the survivors of torture and also that there would be a review mechanism for long-term residents. On the basis of compassion it should be possible for people who are at least four years in direct provision to be given leave to remain in the State. Yesterday, I met the man who describes himself as the "king of Mosney". He is from Iraq and he is nine years in the system. Nobody will be sent back to Iraq. Let us have reality and acknowledgement of the basic requirements of human dignity. Let us change this awful system.

I thank the many heroes including the asylum seekers who have honoured us with their presence here today but also the agencies working closely to bring change. There are positive elements in the Government, and I include the Minister and others, but we need to see delivery now. We do not need a working group to tell us much more about what needs to change; we know it already.