David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

This is an unexpected and unanticipated honour which I am happy to take up. I raised the issue of direct provision in October 2014 and was told in this House - I think by the Minister of State - that it would all be sorted out by April. That was accepted by the House but it has not been addressed. Will the Minister of State give us a progress report? What has actually changed? Apparently there has been some increase in the financial provisions for children but I am not sure that much else has changed. It is incumbent upon the Minister of State to tell the House if there has been some change. I accept his bona fides. He is a good and conscientious Minister of State and, like Senator Conway, I would like to see him re-elected. I agree with Senator Conway that he is the kind of person we need in public life. However, there is the question of the delivery of his promises.I note, on that occasion, that we would have won that legislation only for the fact that Fianna Fáil jumped ship at the last minute, and its three votes collapsed the Bill. I presume it assumed that something would happen and I do not think it has. It was the usual dog in the manger party politics. I do not blame my Sinn Féin colleagues in this House for that.

It is noticeable that the motion before the House falls into three sections: the invocation of various international treaties; a concentration on children and their rights under this; and finally, the question of an inspectorate, the question of food and so on. There are three distinct sections.

The history of this motion began in 1999, on International Human Rights Day, coincidentally, when the Government proposed a system of direct provision. In 2001, the Reception and Integration Agency was formed. However, there was no provision for paying asylum seekers any kind of proper financial provision. In 2009, Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, successfully challenged the intervention of the Government which prevented these asylum seekers from accessing social welfare. They won in the court. What was the reaction of the Government? It was to reverse this court decision by legislation. That, I believe, shows the attitude, not of this Government, but of the Government of that time. There has been a series of cases that I recited when I was introducing my Bill. One example was presided over by Ms Justice Harding Clark, who said:

Sometimes the court is called upon to review a decision which is so unfair and irrational and contains so many errors that the judicial review case seems an inadequate remedy to redress the wrong perpetrated on an applicant. This is such a case.

She sent it back to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal which was completely unrepentant. It was only on the third occasion that the gentleman in question had his application accepted.

Ms Justice Harding Clark talked about decisions being "unfair and irrational". I wish to second what was said by Senator van Turnhout about the extraordinary distinction between people cared for by the State and people in the care of the State. I cannot see any rationale for a distinction. What is worse, children can and have made complaints to the UN committee in Geneva, yet they are unable to make them to our own Ombudsman for Children. That is a shocking situation. I would say to the Minister that as he has a few days left in his current term of office - as we understand the Taoiseach is going to the Park on Tuesday next - he could make a ministerial order about this to empower and involve the Ombudsman for Children. I ask the Minister to do that. It would be a noble gesture as he leaves office. The Ombudsman for Children has consistently appealed to the Government to be included in this system. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason, with goodwill, this should not be done.

I turn to the question of the parents and family life. Many people say that direct provision does not provide a normal family environment. For growing children this is terribly important, as a prolonged spell living in this institutional setting can inhibit a child's healthy growth and development. As a result of this, for most families, who are the majority of residents being accommodated in centres where food is provided on a full board basis, family interactions around food are dictated by strict meal times and limited food choice. I raised this when I was introducing my legislation. One of the things that consolidates family is the family meal. There are also different cultural traditions. The kind of food provided in direct provision is completely unsuitable for babies, toddlers and children. It is high in salt, sugar and fat content and it disempowers the parents. The parents are expected to hand out this slop to their children, without any intervention themselves. They cannot cook themselves and there is no respect for their religious or cultural traditions. What do the children pick up from this? They pick up their parents' lack of empowerment. That makes it critically difficult. It can create a situation where children grow up without any memories of a shared family meal being cooked. The report of the working group on the protection process has a section on the effects of this on family life and children, which includes the following:

Parents often cited their feelings of inadequacy. Their authority as parents and capacity to act as role models for the children are undermined by their economic dependency and their lack of control over their daily lives. They cite a lack of capacity to infuse their traditions and culture in their children due to the lack of private family living space and cooking facilities.

One can understand that there is a feeling of cultural deprivation there. The last time I spoke on this issue I quoted an asylum seeker saying, "Frankly, I feel I am eating in Guantanamo as security people are standing there with walkie-talkie radios, talking to each other and it is not a place you would wish to eat." I think we need to take this into account. The idea that somebody feels as if they were in Guantanamo is rather chilling, and I would like to appeal to the Minister because we have this concept called the best interests of the child. This Government, to its credit, has striven to implement the best interests of the child throughout Irish legislation. I think the question of the best interests of the child should be taken into account when making legislation in this area.

I wish to put on the record some of the voices of people involved directly in the situation from the report of the working group. One such voice says that the "family has little control over decision-making regarding family life". What does that do for parental authority? Another is quoted as saying, "Neither the parents nor the children can enjoy privacy. It is also desirable to offer families a minimum of two rooms." Another resident said, "It is not normal for children to grow up in a situation where they have not seen their parents cook or where they are not sharing a meal in private." Another is quoted as saying, "When one has children, it is not easy to instil one's own cultural values on them, as they end up learning things from other residents." The other residents may come from completely different cultural backgrounds. The children, naturally, are imitative, and they pick up from these things rather than from their own cultural background. Finally, "Direct provision militates against children leading a life integrated in their schools and wider community - difficult to have their friends over to play." We must think in terms of the education process and people growing up, doing their junior certificate and leaving certificate, while their lives are being held in quandary.

I ask the Minister of State - and I am sure my colleagues on various sides of the House would agree with this - that he urgently make an order allowing children to make a complaint directly to the Ombudsman for Children. I very much look forward to hearing him say to this House that he will enact this provision. It would be a glorious way to leave office and I believe it would be in concert with the fact that, unusually, this Private Members' time has no amendment to it. It is the will of the entire House. I ask the Minister of State to listen to what we are saying today.