Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim céad fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. Is dóigh gur seo an tseans deireanach a bheidh againn san suí áirithe seo den Seanad áirithe seo leis an scéal seo a phlé. Mar sin, cuirim fáilte roimh an deis an díospóireacht seo a bheith againn. I welcome this debate as I welcome any debate on direct provision. We do not oppose the motion as I do not see anything in it that is opposable. However, I put on record my disappointment in all of us as a Parliament that we have failed over five years to abolish direct provision. I am not saying this to have a go at anybody in particular but it is one thing I feel very passionately about.

The Irish Refugee Council said recently that:

Several attempts have been made to reduce the potential harm to asylum seeking and refugee children, most recently in recommendations of the Report of the Working Group on the Protection Process, the increase in the allowance for children, the intention to speed up the decision making process in the International Protection Act 2015 and the establishment of new centres under the Irish Refugee Protection Programme. None of these end the practice of requiring children to live in communal institutions alongside complete strangers.

It goes on to say that:

The Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) in May 2015 found serious concerns in relation to child protection and welfare services for children in Direct Provision. Their findings included: physical or mental illness of parents impacting on capacity to provide quality care for children; mental health issues for children and parents; lack of clothes and toys; parent(s) isolating themselves and their children from networks and support services. In addition, amongst the protection concerns were proximity of children to unknown adults living on the same site and inappropriate contact by adults towards some children.

It is very important in the context of this debate to say that the issue is not just about the length of time people are in the institutions, the issues relate to the institutions themselves no matter how long those people are in them. We cannot get away from that fact. We have talked about the working group report. The working group was precluded from putting forward recommendations on direct provision because it was not in the terms of reference. It was specifically precluded because it was looking at the process so alternative models could not be proposed by the working group, which led to frustration and at least one NGO pulling out of the working group because of its frustration. When this NGO tried to put forward positive recommendations about changing direct provision and coming up with a different model, it was told it could not do it because it was not in the terms of reference.

It is not fair to say that other models have not been proposed because they have. We have proposed them in these Houses and the Irish Refugee Council has also made alternative proposals to the Minister in its document Direct Provision: Framing an alternative reception system for people seeking international protection.Senator Conway and I visited the Portuguese refugee council and the version in Portugal of a reception system. While we noted on our return that one cannot simply take a system and superimpose it here, we saw a system there that certainly appears to be much more humane and is working a lot better. It allows people the dignity of the right to work and the right to education after six to nine months and it processes applications in a much more humane and rapid manner. Other models therefore exist and it will be incumbent on whoever is seeking election to not simply go to doors with the working group report but to state whether he or she wishes to abolish direct provision and the next Government will be obliged to return to that issue. I fear the consequences of the passage of the International Protection Act and note that at the outset of the Minister of State's contribution, he stated "what was to be a temporary system of shelter and provision has evolved into a more long-term provision". I believe this to be the first time I have heard a Minister actually state this because heretofore, it always has been claimed it was a temporary scenario and would be reformed. However, it is quite obvious that in accepting the International Protection Bill, the system has been copper-fastened for years to come. I put it to Senators on the Government side that when they accepted that Bill, they copper-fastened many of the problems with the rights and conditions in direct provision about which they are complaining. I certainly place much criticism for the architecture of the direct provision system with Fianna Fáil, which put it together. I refer to how it is a privatised system, that €53 million per year is being spent on these centres and there is very little oversight over many of the companies involved. In a number of cases, they have their bank accounts offshore and there is no oversight of how the moneys are spent in a public forum or through these Houses and this is a question of serious concern to me and to many organisations with which Members engage on a regular basis.

Why are we not moving towards the international position of allowing a right to work and a right to education for asylum seekers, as is done in almost every other developed country in the world? On the right to education, I note the Minister of State indicated there has been movement in this regard. My understanding is a pilot project was put in place by the Minister for Education and Skills, who promised that no other children coming through direct provision would be discriminated against if they sought to go on to third level. I have heard of instances in which people who wished to proceed to third level education have been turned down for education grants and I certainly seek clarification on that issue. As children born into direct provision are not citizens of Ireland and are not cherished in the same way as every other child born in this country, how can one laud and applaud the work the Government has done? It is completely unfair that those children would be treated as second-class citizens in this day and age. Moreover, children in direct provision still are discriminated against because they are not eligible for children's allowance and issues remain in respect of family reunification. As has been noted by previous speakers, there is an issue with regard to oversight and the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman for Children have repeatedly called for such oversight. If a meeting is held next week, I hope this can be conferred in some way, as that at least would be a move forward. However, I also call for the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, to be given independent oversight of direct provision centres, as this also would be really important.