Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

There has been no meaningful engagement with the public or with communities on the ground. I spoke to our local councillor in Monasterevin where one of the centres is located. The council was only informed about that centre being opened three days in advance of it being made public. I understand also that there has been very little engagement with schools in the area as to how the 40 children who will come to that centre will be managed in the school system.

More shocking is the fact that not one of the NGOs working with refugees, immigrants and people in direct provision have been consulted by the Department or the various State agencies working in the area. What about the Irish Refugee Council, the Immigrant Council of Ireland, Spirasi, Doras Luimní, Crosscare and NASC? The Minister of State mentioned the agencies but I did not hear much about the NGOs being engaged in the process. With all due respect, the Irish Red Cross may do good work but it does not have a track record or experience of working with refugees in Ireland. It was not represented on the working group which the Department set up around direct provision, and as a Senator who has been working on this issue for the past four and half years, I have never been contacted about the issue of direct provision by the Irish Red Cross.

The Council decision that three key dimensions should be advanced in parallel, namely, relocation-resettlement, return-readmission-reintegration and co-operation with countries of origin and transit is a cause of alarm. What will be the actual status of those who come here? What is the basis of the Irish refugee protection programme in legislation and how will it affect those coming here? For what status will they be allowed to apply and qualify? Is it refugee status, subsidiary protection or what?

The recent track record of the State in supporting and protecting asylum seekers is, frankly, shameful. Since 2003, Ireland is the only state in the European Union to opt out of EU directives laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers. For 15 years the State has placed asylum seekers in the discredited direct provision system, condemning them to many years in limbo, living on a paltry allowance and denying them the right to work. One third of those living in direct provision today are children. More than half of those living in the system have done so for more than four years. However, in the face of repeated calls from the Opposition and from NGOs working on behalf of migrants and asylum seekers, the Government has failed to end this inhuman and degrading system. The Government has, thus far, also failed to deliver an updated version of the Immigration Residence and Protection Bill 2010.

This history of inaction and indifference to the plight of asylum seekers has been the hallmark of this and previous Governments. What I find alarming is the looming reality that more vulnerable and traumatised people fleeing war and destruction may now find themselves and their children in what can only be described as a form of neo direct provision.I challenge the Minister of State to tell me how it is any different from the system in place already? It is like déjà vuthat on the back of two reports, one from the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions and the other from the working group established by the Government to look at improvements to the protection process, including direct provision, we are looking at the real danger that the system is about to grow and expand as part of this resettlement regime. Any right-thinking person should be alarmed at the plans for emergency reception and integration centres.

People should be outraged at the news that people who are already making huge profits from the lucrative direct provision business are about to be awarded contracts to house vulnerable refugees in hotels, such as the Hazel Hotel in Monasterevin, and in hotels and premises in Cork and Kerry. Will the Minister clarify who owns these hotels and what tender process was put in place to contract them? The Government has engaged in no consultation with the public or with local communities and neither has it provided additional resources to already stretched schools, hospitals and other public service providers who will be expected to cater for these people. The growth and extension of direct provision is not acceptable. To date the Minister of State and the Government have not implemented a single recommendation from either of the reports I mentioned. Frankly, I am alarmed by the plans, inasmuch as we know about them as I am sure the public will be.

What the Minister of State is planning with the apparent support of the UNHCR is more institutionalised living for vulnerable people, yet we see no additional resources being made available for these traumatised adults and children in terms of mental health and public health provision. An article in The Guardiantoday outlines the level of torture that is being inflicted in some of those areas, such as Syria, Eritrea and Iraq. These people are coming into a country that leaves people to die on trolleys and that cuts funding to children with special needs, to poor children and to single mothers. We see no evidence that extra staff resources have been allocated to the services that will be dealing with them when they come. As it stands, if a person claims asylum in Ireland he or she could be waiting up to six months for an interview. How will the services be able to process new applications more quickly? What will be the knock-on effect for those other people who are languishing in the direct provision system? I ask the Minister to consider what message this sends to people who have already spent five, six, seven and ten years in direct provision, people who, as we speak, are staring at the abyss and desperately hanging on to the tiniest bit of hope in order to survive with some morsel of human dignity. This de facto extension of direct provision creates a hierarchy not only of refugees and immigrants but of desperation and uncertainty.When I look at the language of the motions I fear it is more about putting up barbed wire fences around the EU, keeping out as many people as possible and sending people back to where they came from as soon as possible.