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

This is the protection Bill. It deals with a large number of the recommendations set out in the report of the working group on direct provision. Direct provision has been a disaster for the families involved. It was a six-month solution that turned into a 12-year or 13-year solution. Nobody who is engaged in this process ever suggested that direct provision would be abolished. I never said it. Nobody I know who has a sense of what the issues are would suggest that it be abolished. If we abolish direct provision, many asylum seekers will end up homeless. That was the reality in 2000 when the system came into operation. There were reports of people seeking asylum in this country sleeping in parks. The system of direct provision was entered into to provide short-term accommodation to individuals who are in desperate need. I could stand over that system if the accommodation was of an excellent standard, if the system was family-centred, if the individuals within the system were treated with dignity and if applications were dealt with speedily, transparently and fairly. I cannot stand over it if the accommodation becomes somebody's long-term home. Is the Senator is suggesting that we should put everybody who seeks asylum in this country on the housing list or in homeless accommodation?That will be the direct result of the abolition of the direct provision system.

The overarching problem with direct provision is the length of stay. I have always said I can stand over a system in which people live with dignity and respect for a period of months in a centre that looks after them and cares for their needs. I cannot stand over a system which effectively becomes an institution in which families and children grow up. The length of stay is the issue. If we abolish direct provision we must prepare for 3,000 applicants a year on housing lists throughout the country and parks filled with people sleeping on benches. That is what we had in 2000 and I will not return to it. I will stand over a system of direct provision as a short-term solution which solves people's accommodation needs as they seek an application for protection in this country. If it is positively received they will have leave to remain and if it is not they must leave. This is the reality. It comes as no surprise to me that those who protest about the abolition of direct provision have slogans with no effect on real life. In fairness, Senators have worked very hard on this issue. There is no far right lunatic conservative voice in this or the other Chamber demanding a tougher stance. We are all looking for a humanitarian response. Throwing out one liners and hashtags to abolish direct provision is fine but it is not a solution. This is the solution. This is why I say we should pick through the individual amendments and work collectively to achieve something and not waste our time on grandstanding.