Seanad debates

Wednesday, 17 September 2014

Direct Provision System: Motion

 

6:50 pm

Photo of Aodhán Ó RíordáinAodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin North Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am entitled to hold that view even if it may conflict with the views of others in Government. A debate on this subject is long overdue and is now taking place at a serious level not just because of what I have been saying but because of the long and persistent questioning of the system by NGOs, international bodies and by many Members of the Oireachtas, especially Members of Seanad Éireann.
I congratulate members of the media who have been highlighting this issue. The House will know from recent media reports that there is an ongoing series of protests in asylum accommodation centres. I want to make it clear that while I fully respect the rights of residents to protest, I cannot condone the targeting of individuals working in certain direct provision centres or the stopping of people going about their lawful work. I have visited a number of centres and while my concerns about the system are unabated, I fully accept that persons there, as well as in the Reception and Integration Agency, are working on a day-to-day basis in the interests of the residents and bring a high level of commitment to their work.
This system has been in operation for 14 years and no click of my fingers is going to end it immediately. The system is a creature of Government and depending on the outcome of the review it will require Government approval to change it. Nonetheless, I can say to this House and to those outside it that change can take place more rapidly than anyone previously thought through the working group review mechanism referred to in the Government counter motion.
Quite apart from these political developments, there has been activity on the legal front, as already mentioned in the debate. The six-week hearing in the CA and TY judicial review proceedings in the High Court challenging, inter alia, the legality and constitutionality of the direct provision system ended on 28 July 2014 and a reserved judgment is awaited. This judgment may also affect the future of the system.
My job as Minister of State is to ensure that the commitment to a review is honoured. An important first step in setting up this working group will be convening a roundtable consultation tomorrow morning, 18 September. The purpose of this roundtable consultation is twofold. First, it is to engage with non-governmental organisations active in the area to enable them to outline the key issues for them with the State's current arrangements for asylum seekers. Second, the output of the consultation will be used to inform in more detail the terms of reference of the working group.
A number of themes and issues which are reflective of the current debate on the State's arrangements have been identified for discussion at the roundtable consultation. These include the material needs of applicants in direct provision, including the direct provision allowance and exceptional needs payments, limitations on the length of time persons spend in direct provision, education and delays in the international protection determination process. It will also address the issue of the right to work. In other words, all the calls made on the Government in Senator Mullen's motion can be addressed through this working group in a calm, considered and detailed way. I expect the group will have three months in which to come up with its recommendations and I want to stick to that. Nobody wants a group that sits for six or nine months. I believe three months is a realistic target for a report to be issued.
Regardless of the changes that need to be made to the way we deal with asylum seekers, I need to acknowledge that the direct provision system has enabled the housing and other needs of over 51,000 asylum seekers to be met since it was introduced. No one has ever been made homeless.
Nonetheless, people spend too long in direct provision. There are very many reasons for this. Approximately 50% of persons in the direct provision system have judicial review applications pending, are the subject of deportation orders or are seeking leave to remain in the State for non-protection reasons. A recent examination of cases in the direct provision system suggested that in the overwhelming majority of cases in the system longer than four years - the cut-off date suggested in Senator Mullen's motion - the applicants or their family members have legal proceedings pending, having exhausted all the processes in the protection system.
With regard to the protection process more generally, the Government counter motion acknowledges the commitment to introduce a separate protection Bill to establish a single application procedure for the investigation of all grounds for protection. This reform will simplify and streamline existing arrangements and provide applicants with a final decision on their protection application in a more straightforward and timely fashion. It will also, as a consequence, reduce the length of time that applicants spend in the direct provision system. The aim is to have the Bill passed through the Oireachtas by Easter 2015, with the heads of the Bill to be approved and published in January.
The independent working group process which I commend to the House is a sensible one. It allows for necessary change to be identified and managed effectively without the dangers which would be generated by peremptory actions. I acknowledge that the system of direct provision was created to avert a homelessness crisis. It is important any outcome of a review of the system does not serve to re-create the crisis which led to its establishment in the first place. Many suggestions to reform the direct provision system have an underlying assumption that numbers coming into the State seeking asylum will continue to fall and that it is a static not a dynamic issue. So far in 2014, asylum claims are running 40% higher than in 2013.
I have been heartened, as I am sure many in this House will have been, by the public outcry on the issue, which is in marked contrast to some of the emotions that may have been witnessed ten years ago. I believe we are on the side of public sympathy on the issue. I have been invigorated and energised by the debate that has taken place here today.

As part of my role as Minister of State in the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht I have responsibility for commemorations as well. The Proclamation we will be discussing, celebrating and commemorating in two years' time weighs heavily on my shoulders, as it does on the Members of this House. We must be honest with ourselves. We cannot commemorate, celebrate and acknowledge that document if we do not sort out issues such as direct provision. We cannot have a republic that has lesser children. While the system remains in its current form, we are destined to have within our country children who are considered to be lesser. We cannot stand over that and I will not stand over that. I have been visiting centres throughout the country. I am mindful of the comments that have been made about issues around trafficking, sexual assault, rape and torture that people within the system have suffered. I met the expert team in Beaumont Hospital who have confirmed this to me and stated their concerns about the people they have been treating from the reception centre in Balseskin in Finglas, who after a period of treatment then move to a centre in places such as Mayo. That is not the best care for people who have suffered such trauma and abuse in the country from where they have come. Many issues must be addressed.

People have also discussed the issue of education. I am a great believer that education is a great liberator. No matter what happens in one's life, whatever trauma or setback one gets, such as losing a job, a relationship break-up or having to travel from one country to another, education will always help one to bounce back. We must ensure within the working group that the issue of access to education is addressed. The comments of the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan in this regard are to be welcomed.

I think everybody across this House has said that this is not a party political issue, that it is an issue on which we can work to achieve together. I will return to this House when the report from the expert group is issued, and from there we will have a process to achieve a system that collectively we can be proud of and not one of which we are ashamed.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.