Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim céad fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. Caithfidh mé a rá go bhfuil áthas orm go bhfuil sé ag brú na ceiste seo chomh láidir agus atá sé ag brú na ceiste seo. Tá mo thacaíocht iomlán aige á dhéanamh sin agus beidh mé ag cur tuilleadh brú air. I take issue with some of the points that have been made up to now, although it is true that we are all fundamentally in agreement that the system of direct provision is a very serious issue.

I take issue with the idea of an amnesty, because to give somebody an amnesty implies that they have done something wrong, that they have broken the law, etc. Under international human rights law, these people deserve determination of their cases in some way. Going back to the suggestions that have been made by the Irish Refugee Council and Doras Luimní, we need to consider this in relation to the different categories of people with outstanding protection claims: people with leave to remain applications pending, people with applications pending before the High Court, people with deportation orders, and victims of trafficking. I would like the Minister of State's response on those recommendations. Has he seen them, has he discussed them with the organisations, and does he agree with them? To blindly say we will give an amnesty does not fulfil our actual human rights obligations to the people we are talking about. We must also put to bed the idea that we should tinker around with direct provision. Direct provision as a system is totally flawed. The concept is flawed. We need to admit that it is flawed, come up with a different concept and work on the transition from what we have at the moment to a much better system. We all talk with many people involved in the direct provision system. I know the Minister of State does as well. To be brutally honest, they are sick to the teeth of our having debates on the issue. Every time I meet them, they say, "You are talking about it, but what is happening?". The working group has an important role, but there are certain things the Minister of State and his Cabinet colleagues could do fairly quickly, and I will be pushing for them to do so.

I know time is going to catch me on this, so I am going to bring up a very serious issue that has come to light recently - namely, deaths in the system and the lack of information as to how they are being recorded by the RIA. I have statistics from a parliamentary question that my colleague Deputy Michael Colreavy tabled for me. We have had 61 deaths in the system since 2002. A quarter of those deaths were among infants from zero to five years of age. I am very concerned about that and I am sure the Minister of State is too, because one quarter of all deaths in that age group seems an inordinately high proportion in any cohort of the population. We need to ask questions about why that is so. I note that in an answer to a previous parliamentary question, the former Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter, said that records were based on informal information and were not official records of death. I know from making inquiries in this area that there very little information is given. That is not good enough. The Minister of State must go back to RIA, get more information and put a better process in place. That leads to my support of calls from other Senators regarding the oversight. Sitting on the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions, I have heard Emily O'Reilly, Peter Tyndall, Emily Logan and others say that we must have oversight of this system. People have a right to complain. They should not have to complain to the people who are incarcerating them. It is unacceptable. This must be addressed by a simple amending Bill to give the Ombudsman for Children, in particular, and the Ombudsman the right to take complaints in that system.

I have asked the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald, on a number of occasions in this House - often abusing parliamentary privilege, because my question was unrelated to the Bill she was here to discuss - whether she supports the statements the Minister of State has made on direct provision. She has not given me a direct answer on that. I am afraid the Minister of State does not have full Government backing on the issue of direct provision. I wish he did, and I wish Government would act more quickly. Can he clarify for us whether he has full Government support for his efforts to change this system? I note also that another pending court case relates to a lady under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. Perhaps he would like to comment on the way that was implemented in her case, because she did not have a right to leave the country.

The other two areas on which action could be taken are the right to work and the right to education. We do not need a working group to tell us the current situation is wrong. These rights are recognised internationally. They are recognised in almost every other European state. Our State should recognise them. Many people in direct provision liken the system to being in prison, but actually it is probably worse than prison. They tell me that at least when one is in prison, one knows when one's sentence will end, and one also has educational opportunities. They do not have this. It is unacceptable in this day and age. A promise was made by the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, about young people in direct provision going from the leaving certificate to third level education. Could the Minister of State give us an update on that? Will they be allowed continue their education into third level? Some of these young people have been here most of their lives. I have not heard any statements on this in the recent past, so perhaps the Minister of State could clarify that.

There are also issues with regard to social welfare that could be addressed immediately. The amount of money people receive in direct provision is totally inadequate for the costs they incur. I note that the reason the case the Minister of State alluded to in his opening statement fell apart is that direct provision has no legislative basis. If this is the case, then it can be changed. Serious concerns have been raised by Doras Luimní in particular at the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions about the cost of direct provision. A number of the companies involved in direct provision are unlimited offshore companies. Who is auditing these companies? Who is auditing the money that is going into them? Why can we not bring them in front of the Public Accounts Committee to check how the moneys are being spent in the companies that are being contracted by the Minister of State's Department? In addition, from my understanding, the contracts are on a roll-over basis. They are renewed on a year-to-year basis. Perhaps the Minister of State could clarify that. That is what RIA has told me. If so, what is the tendering process? I have never seen a tender in a public newspaper for somebody to run a direct provision centre. It seems very strange, if we are spending €53 million a year of State funding, that there is no full oversight of the way that money is being spent. We need to examine that. There are many more questions, and I am sure we will get another opportunity to ask them, but I fully support the Minister of State. The issue of infant deaths is very serious and we must examine it.