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

The issue does not become a feature of general elections nor does it become a feature of the political discourse at that difficult time for candidates. I believe that is appropriate and I hope we can hold on to that.

The term direct provision describes the system whereby the State directly provides accommodation and other ancillary needs for those who apply for asylum in Ireland. When an applicant presents himself or herself for protection, this State is in the position to immediately offer an applicant a place to stay, shelter, a bed, three meals a day and other services on a voluntary basis. The fact that Ireland, even at the height of its financial challenges, has maintained its commitment to a system of directly providing for applicants' needs is important and clearly demonstrates the State's commitment to support those fleeing persecution.

The Government acknowledged that what was to be a temporary system of shelter and provision has evolved into a more long-term provision and it is here that many challenges have arisen. This Government established a high level working group in October 2014 to report to it on improvements in the protection process, including direct provision and supports for asylum seekers. A comprehensive report, including 173 recommendations was submitted to Government by the chair, Mr. Justice Bryan McMahon, and published on 30 June 2015 and it is good to see him in the House this evening. This Oireachtas and those living in direct provision owe him a great debt of gratitude.

The report's key conclusion was that the system of directly providing for applicants' needs had evolved from being a short-term measure into a long-term one primarily as a result of the multi-layered determination and appeals process. The document held up by Senator Fiach Mac Conghail is the only document the Department is working off. Anybody facing into this election should make the commitment that document is the only document that any of us, on returning to these Houses, and hopefully returning to Government, should be seeking to implement in its entirety.

Applicants are currently involved in a sequential process where each element of their refugee application is considered, appealed or judicially reviewed and exhausted before any other information such as their qualification for subsidiary protection, can be considered. The sequence of appeal and review is then possibly repeated and exhausted before any other humanitarian matters can finally be considered for permission to remain. This sequential application system has meant that some applicants' needs are directly provided for by the State for long periods of time.

The report urged action on addressing this length of time issue and the Government with the approval of this House, passed the International Protection Bill on 18 December 2015, addressing 26 of the report's 78 recommendations specifically in relation to the protection determination process.The successful implementation of this reform should ensure that in future, delays in the processing of applications will not be the cause of persons spending lengthy periods in direct provision.

While the International Protection Act's scope did not extend to what is called direct provision, it deals with the application process and by extension those in direct provision and the length of time they will spend there. There have been calls for direct provision to be abolished but these are consistently made in a context of an absence of any alternative system being proposed. As a Government responsible for protecting vulnerable people, we can not leave them to their own devices or to some unspecified system that those who call for abolition have never set out a practical alternative.

Regarding the operation of the direct provision centres, all contracts entered into by the Department follow approved tendering procedures. We would welcome applications from groups or organisations which have expressed great concerns about the standards in direct provision to submit their proposals to provide, run and manage such centres. As recently as last August, the Department invited expressions of interest from persons interested in providing accommodation and ancillary services for persons seeking asylum in the State. The Department continues to welcome such expressions of interest. It is my understanding that an open, transparent and competitive tendering process will commence shortly for the management of State owned accommodation centres. For the information of the House, I have visited many of the centres, two in Waterford, three in Dublin, Mosney, Laois, Galway, two in Limerick, Clare, Mayo and Sligo, so I know what I am talking about. The State funds the service providers and I reiterate once again that it is open to any group which feels a better service can be provided to make such a proposal and it will be processed properly through our approved tendering procedures. In the meantime, it is clear from the working group report that the current system has challenges that must be met, especially for those who rely on this accommodation and support for longer periods than planned. The working group was particularly concerned about the impact long-term institutional residency has on children. Many of the contributions here were made in terms of the impact it has on children, rightly so.

The International Protection Act takes the reforming step of introducing a single application procedure which will significantly simplify the system of determination and allows for all information to be considered in the first instance without any dilution in best practice in proper procedures or due process. This delivers on the commitment given in the Statement of Government Priorities 2014-2016, "to legislate to reduce the length of time the asylum applicant spends in the asylum determination system and consequently in Direct Provision through the establishment of a single applications procedure." The Act is in compliance with the United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees and with the related EU directives on asylum procedures and qualification into which Ireland has opted.

From the outset, the Department of Justice and Equality placed the "best interests of the child" at the centre of discussions with the Attorney General's office in preparing this Act and ensured that this value was placed in a number of specific provisions of the published Bill. Both the Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, and I repeatedly assured Oireachtas Members that this principle is at the heart of the Act and will be embedded in best practice in the protection process arising from the introduction of a new single application procedure. These matters were given careful scrutiny by the Council of State and the President signed the Bill into law on 30 December 2015.

In the motion before the House, Senators have rightly drawn attention to the context in which we operate. This Government through a referendum passed by the people ensured that children now have full constitutional protection. This Act must be read in the context of the constitutional obligations set out in Article 42A(1). It is also to be read in the context of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, including Article 24(1) which states: "in all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child's best interests must be a primary consideration".

I acknowledge the serious and helpful engagement of Senator Jillian van Turnhout and the Children's Rights Alliance with Department officials and their combined efforts to ensure that children's best interests are protected in the Act and in our protection system. This debate follows on from that co-operation.

The Department on publication of the International Protection Bill set out its commitment in this area and ensured the "best interests of the child" was placed in sections 24, 35 and 57 in the original Bill presented to the Oireachtas. In the Seanad, the Department introduced a further amendment requiring Tusla to consider legal advice as well as its own information as to when a child in its care should become an applicant - section 15(4).

As a result of the constructive engagements in both Houses and with NGOs which engaged with the Department, a number of further amendments were accepted by the Government to the Act to give further assurance as to the Government's bona fides on protecting children in our protection process. As a result, to offer further reassurance to advocates who rightly promote the best interests of the child, the "best interests principle" or child positive amendments have been incorporated in sections 15(4), 20(7), 24, 27, 35 and 52 to 57, inclusive.

The Government has also provided more resources for the processing of applications in the system five years or more and there has been a noticeable acceleration in grants of status and in addressing legal challenges arising in respect of older applications in the current system. As Minister of State, during the summer, I completed the work of a task force designed to assist those granted status in leaving direct provision and I am pleased to report that despite accommodation pressures, 57% were found to be able to leave within three months and this rose to 86% within six months of being granted status. I confirm the statistics as outlined by Senator Marie Moloney. Since the publication of this report and because of the extra resources afforded to the Department in the last budget, between 60 and 80 people per month in direct provision are getting leave to remain. I would add that more than 80 deportation orders have been revoked since publication of the report, which is welcome.

This is considerable constructive activity and welcome to all in the protection system or who advocate on their behalf. The work is continuing and these matters are the subject of ongoing deliberations in the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy and Public Service Reform. Important progress has been outlined above in implementing the report's recommendations notwithstanding the significant challenges faced by Ireland and the European Union arising from the migration crisis in the Mediterranean area occurring in the months following the report's publication. The Department is involved in an audit of progress on the implementation of recommendations to update the Cabinet committee at present. The motion asks for updates on specific recommendations of the working group which I will now deal with.

In response to the Senators' query on recommendation 5.30 that the direct provision weekly allowance for adults should be increased from €19.10 to €38.74 for adults and from €9.60 to €29.80 for children, I am pleased to inform the House that the Tánaiste and the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, jointly sought and obtained Government approval to increase the weekly allowance to be paid to children by six euro earlier this month. This amounts to a more than 60% increase on the previous level, acknowledging that this allowance had not been increased since its introduction. These recommendations remain on the Cabinet committee's agenda for further consideration. The changes are good but I concede they are not good enough.

The Minister for Health's implementation of the waiving of prescription charges has also eased another serious financial pressure on parents who had to meet those costs from their direct provision allowances. Senators referred to the potential oversight role of the Ombudsman for Children. I confirm to the House that the Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, is meeting the Ombudsman for Children next Wednesday to discuss this and other issues.

In addition, I welcome the swift implementation by the Minister for Education and Skills of the working group's recommendations in regard to children living in direct provision to be supported to access third level education which positively impacted on children during this academic year. In regard to recommendation 3.263, the International Protection Act's implementation will involve a thorough review of all materials, guidelines and agreements to ensure best practice. Interviews with unaccompanied minors are conducted in specially designed child-friendly interview rooms in the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, ORAC, on Mount Street. A representative from the Child and Family Agency, Tusla, attends the interview with the child applicant and assists them throughout the whole asylum process, including helping them with their initial application and with explaining to them what to expect in the protection process.

The Refugee Appeals Tribunal will become the International Protection Appeals Tribunal. To date the tribunal has not had any appeals from unaccompanied children or minors. The tribunal published a guideline on dealing with child applicants in the past year. This followed extensive consultation with various interested parties, including the Ombudsman for Children, and a two-day inter-agency training course on dealing with child applicants. The Legal Aid Board has an information leaflet, written in plain English, on the service it provides to asylum seekers. This leaflet is translated into various languages and is also contained on the board's website. The leaflets are made available to applicants in the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner on registration. Specialised legal information including early legal advice is given to all unaccompanied minors in the care of Tusla via a dedicated unit in the law centre in Smithfield.

In regard to recommendation 4.199, the working group was fully aware that a welfare strategy already exists both in terms of liaison structures and also in terms of individual case management. Tusla reports that a document outlining this strategy and a protocol governing same is currently being further developed jointly by themselves and the Reception and Integration Agency, RIA, which is responsible for the centres. This updated protocol will be available from mid-February. It is important that we be clear and that the working group was fully aware that Tusla and RIA have had structures in place for several years to assist in collaboration on inter-agency communication, information and case management both in regard to the general population of children and families in direct provision and also with "aged out" unaccompanied minors. Their recommendation was designed to ensure that this best practice would be embedded in the system and we are happy to offer such reassurance.This collaboration is achieved both through organised inter-agency meetings and on an ongoing basis in respect of individual case management.

Tusla also advises that it is currently progressing the arrangement to identify a named social worker on its child protection team both internally within the line management structure and in collaboration with the HSE and RIA. It is intended that there would also be linkage between the child protection social worker and the social workers on the mental health and primary care teams with the staff member in each centre who is identified by RIA as the designated officer for Children First. This arrangement will be put in place by mid-February.

The HSE is in the process of strengthening links with its mental health division to ensure the mental health needs of people living in direct provision are adequately addressed. The HSE sits on a high level group chaired by RIA comprising statutory representation from the Department of Social Protection, Tusla, etc., and it works collaboratively to address any issues emerging or that have been escalated. These agencies were represented on the working group and the HSE is working towards enhancing linkages across the operational system so that there is a named person in each community health organisation to whom queries in respect of direct provision centres in that catchment area can be directed.

In respect of recommendation 4.226, inspections of direct provision centres are currently carried out by RIA and by an independent contracted private company. These regular and unannounced inspections are made to ensure that services provided to residents are satisfactory and that all health and safety requirements are being met. The services that each centre must provide to residents are also set out in the RIA house rules, which were revised around the same time the working group report was published and were distributed to all centres. A new complaints system was introduced by RIA in 2015 allowing for complaints to be appealed to an independent officer. Complaints made since have been addressed locally and the appeal officer has not received any request to intervene. It is important to monitor the impact of these improvements and we are doing so as part of the report's consideration process.

Establishing another inspectorate or extending the remit of an existing body to carry out inspections in direct provision centres will require further operational consideration. The establishment of any new body will naturally have resource implications while extending the remit of an existing body may necessitate a legislative change. For these reasons, this recommendation remains under active consideration and the officials in my Department will continue to explore the available options as to how this might be progressed.

In respect of recommendation 4.135, I again note the progress being made by RIA's new and more independent complaints system to swiftly address issues that arise. Extending the remit of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Ombudsman for Children may also require a legislative change in addition to having resource implications for staffing levels in both offices to deal with the increased functions. Discussions between officials of my Department and the Office of the Ombudsman took place in December last. It is expected that similar discussions will take place with the Ombudsman for Children next Wednesday. I would hope that progress can be made quickly on this matter.

In respect of recommendation 4.75, while the recommendation of the working group that we should provide all families with access to cooking facilities and their own private living space is certainly desirable, it is not easy to implement in the short term. The impact of a substantial increase in demand for accommodation which coincided with the publication of the working group's report cannot be understated. We have seen a 120% increase in protection applications in 2015 and with our acceptance of a further 4,000 applicants under the Irish Refugee Protection Programme, IRPP, this has brought a further demand on the resources available in the market place to meet the needs of increasing numbers and our commitment to establish emergency reception and orientation centres for the new arrivals under the IRPP. We have no reason to believe that this trend will not continue in this and in subsequent years.

Reconfiguring the existing centres to provide communal kitchens and private living space at a time of rapidly increasing demand would, as I understand it, involve a significant restructuring of the property portfolio currently held by RIA in the Department. It may also have the unintended consequence of reducing bed capacity at a time when the number of daily asylum applications being made in the country is increasing significantly. We must also acknowledge that there is a shortage of accommodation in the State generally which also impacts on our ability to tender for suitable accommodation which may need to be procured.

It is important to note that 15 direct provision centres already provide access to a communal kitchen where residents can prepare their own meals and we are looking to extend and enhance such provisions, where possible. Four of these centres have their own self-contained catering units for each family. All accommodation centres have access to kitchenette facilities where residents can heat food or make tea and coffee. The Department is currently examining logistical solutions in respect of existing property and is consulting with the Office of Government Procurement on the best approach to future tenders for direct provision accommodation. In considering any changes to accommodation centres, special attention must also be paid to ensure continued compliance with all planning, health and safety and fire regulations, etc., as recommended in the report of the working group.

It is clear progress is being made and that we are meeting the challenge to considerably reduce the time applicants are dependent on the system of direct provision for their needs by that ensuring a quality-driven single application procedure - the most significant reform of our protection process in a decade - is deliverable through the International Protection Act.

Meeting the needs of those in need of protection requires more than one line solutions. The working group did a thorough job in recommending changes in key areas of the protection process, including direct provision and support services. Important progress has been made in six months, most especially in the key pillar of positive change and legislation for a fair and efficient single application procedure which addressed the matters raised by 26 of the working group's recommendations.

I am confident the current review of progress on the working group's recommendations being undertaken by my Department will yield further cross-departmental progress and that the ongoing deliberations by the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy and Public Service Reform will agree more significant progress in an area which has been of concern to this Government. In initiating the first review of this area through a high level working group, delivering on implementation of its recommendations and in passing the single most important reform of the cumbersome sequential application procedure - the root of so many challenges in the protection process - we have been a Government whose practical response to a system that has been unchanged for 15 years will yield progressive results in the years ahead. We are prioritising the delivery of a protection system which is fair and efficient, providing for the needs of those in need of our protection at a time of challenge and change which we must meet across Europe and beyond. It is to the eternal credit of this House that this issue has been constantly raised. I thank Members from all sides on behalf of the children and those living in direct provision for their tenacity in pursuing this issue.