Aideen Hayden (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, on his appointment and welcome him to the House. His bona fides on the issue are not in any way questionable. Shortly after his appointment he was on record as saying the system is inhumane and the conditions in which people are expected to live is intolerable. He also said that the length of time people spend in the centres is outrageous and that new legislation would limit the periods a person spent in the system to between six months and 12 months. He further said that he believed in the extension of the right to work and that it should be an option to work after a certain period because if people who spend a long period in another country are not allowed to work, they either retreat into themselves or find a parallel economy in which they use their skills in the same way as the vast majority of EU member states allow. As someone who has had strong views on direct provision for a long period, I was very proud of those comments. I am proud of the record of the Labour Party on the issue.
I very much welcome the announcement of the review group. I agree with my colleague, Senator Naughton, that the review group should report within a short period. I accept there are two issues at stake, namely, direct provision itself and the facilities involved, and also the length of time people spend in the system before their right to remain in this country is adjudicated upon.
I am also conscious of the fact that judicial proceedings are ongoing – the CA and TY judicial review, which has and does challenge the legal basis of direct provision – and also the right to work and whether family and private life rights are being respected in the direct provision scheme. I do not know why that is meant to be a question because the answer is quite clear. They are not respected in the direct provision scheme and neither are some of the other questions being considered in the legal challenge questions per se. They might be legal questions but they are certainly not questions. At the Tom Johnson summer school – Labour Youth’s summer school – a lady and her two children gave a very harrowing account of their time in direct provision. The older girl had just sat her leaving certificate and she explained how her family went to bed at 7 p.m. every night so that she could study. She got an excellent leaving certificate and as has already been pointed out, she has no future in the education system in this country. That is not acceptable in a civilised society. Like many other Senators, I will hold the Minister of State to account for what he has said and for what I believe he will do to alter the situation in this country.
I wish to focus on an issue I would very much like the Minister of State to address in the review. Much has been said about housing for people in direct provision. We had a debate a number of months ago and at the time I noted that the The Irish Timeshad published the reports of inspections across accommodation centres in the previous 12 months. They found numerous breaches regarding fire safety, blocked emergency exits, breaches in child protection with older children minding younger children, residents being served cold food due to inadequate kitchen facilities, bedrooms in need of repair, leaks, faulty heating systems and rotten floor boards. The list went on and on. As someone who believes strongly in the right to a home for everybody living in this country, I urge the Minister of State to ensure the review group would consider closely and seriously the housing situation of people in direct provision. Nobody living in direct provision should be subjected to accommodation that does not meet the minimum standards for housing in this country. I refer the Minister of State to the minimum standards for private rented housing, which are minimum standards. No accommodation provider in this country should be allowed not to meet the standards. I urge the Minister of State to make that one of the requirements for the review group.
It is of concern that we have spent so much money on non-State providers of direct provision accommodation. Serious amounts are involved. I am open to correction but not one provider’s contract in this country has ever been terminated. That is not good enough considering what we know to be the criticisms that people have made of their accommodation. I would like the matter to be investigated. It appears that in this situation two and two does not equal four. We must show serious concern for the right to a home for people living in direct provision, their right to have a family life, for their children to be able to study, for them to be warm, and to be able to cook their own food. They are basic, fundamental human rights that we do not need any court in the land to adjudge as we know them to be true.