Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. Táim thar a bheith buíoch de as teacht isteach chun an cheist seo a fhreagairt. The Minister of State may be aware that I have raised the direct provision model on a number of occasions. This is an issue of major concern to me. It not appropriate for the long-term housing of refugees seeking asylum in the State. There are major issues concerning the treatment of people in these centres. The Irish Refugee Council has raised very serious issues about the treatment of children in these centres in its recent reports. When one hears the discourse on issues such as this locally or in the media, one gets a sense of the public perception that those seeking asylum are lucky to have a place to stay and are provided with meals. When refugees find they are stuck in the situation for years on end, it is very difficult for them. There is a significant human cost from the social and economic perspectives. People may be held in limbo for up to ten years. I have met and talked to some of these people.

When the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, was in opposition, he and the then Labour Party members in opposition raised serious questions about the direct provision model, whether it was economic and if there was a more suitable method of housing people who are seeking asylum and fast-tracking asylum applications. I believe there is a will to try to move the process forward. What is the cost to the State of the direct provision model? There are urban myths that direct provision is a cheaper way to house people than allocating them community housing or providing them with a local authority house in cities and towns.

I am sure the Minister of State shares my concern that the direct provision model is a privatised system. We know it is being run by private companies on behalf of the State, with very little oversight. The main goal of these companies is to make a profit. There are questions as to how much of the State money that is paid per capita for persons in this direct provision accommodation is being spent on providing a top quality service?

That is the reason I am requesting a breakdown per capita of the cost of keeping somebody seeking asylum in the direct provision model. What payments do the State make to them? We are told that those living in direct provision accommodation are paid ¤19.10 per week to allow them to buy what they like. Are other payments made in addition to this weekly allowance? I look forward to hearing the response of the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White, and I thank him for coming to the Chamber.

Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Ó Clochartaigh for raising this issue. I am responding on this subject on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter.

I feel it is necessary in the first instance to put on record what direct provision means and how we fulfil our obligations to those persons who apply for international protection from this State. The policy of direct provision and dispersal is one of the central features of the State's asylum system. The Minister has recounted in responses to parliamentary questions in the Dáil how the direct provision system was a necessary response to the increasing number of asylum seekers arriving in the State, given the incapacity of the structures dealing with homelessness to cope with the crisis.

Direct provision is essentially a cashless system whereby the residents of accommodation centres are provided with food and other services on a full board basis. Residents do not have to pay for rent, electricity, heating, food, maintenance or other costs. Health and education services from mainstream hospitals-clinics and schools are provided in the same way as for Irish citizens. Residents receive a weekly direct provision allowance of ¤19.10 per adult and ¤9.60 per child. They are also entitled to supports under the community welfare scheme.

There are currently 4,836 persons seeking international protection residing in 35 direct provision accommodation centres across 17 counties under contract to the Reception and Integration Agency, the RIA, an operational unit of the Irish naturalisation and immigration service, INIS, of the Department of Justice and Equality. Three of the 35 centres are State owned, that is to say, the land and buildings are owned by the State but the management of all 35 centres is provided by private companies under contract to RIA. RIA does not own, lease or rent premises from commercial contractors, rather it contracts in a comprehensive range of services and facilities which include accommodation, housekeeping and so on for a fixed sum over the period of the contract. The Minister has explained in numerous responses to parliamentary questions that RIA negotiates separately with each contractor. It is not in the interests of the taxpayer that details of rates paid to individual contractors for current contracts are provided publicly. With reducing numbers and because of significant cost cutting measures put in place by RIA, the overall cost of the direct provision system is declining. In 2008, RIA spent ¤91.5 million and in 2012, the Estimate provision is ¤63.5 million. This represents a decline of 30% over four years. A breakdown of these expenditure costs are shown in RIA's annual reports for the years 2007 to 2011, inclusive, which are published on its website.

Given that different rates are paid to different contracts and residents receive a range of welfare, medical, legal and educational benefits not covered in the RIA budget, a note of caution has to be sounded in proving a statistic showing the cost per individual to the State of keeping asylum seekers in the direct provision system. Nonetheless, taking the overall RIA expenditure of ¤69.5 million in 2011 and the number of residents at the midpoint of that year, which was 5,745, this would represent a cost per RIA resident of just over ¤12,000 per year. It is worth noting that in 2010, a value for money review of the direct provision system found that: "From comparison with a number of options, including social welfare and self-catering, the chosen policy of direct provision was found to be the best choice for a number of reasons. It is less costly, it is less likely to act as an incentive to new asylum seekers (asylum shopping) and it allows the State to manage the challenge of asylum seekers in a way that reduces pressure on local services." A copy of that particular report, the value for money review is on the Oireachtas and on the RIA websites.

Deirdre Clune (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Senator Ó Clochartaigh wish to ask a supplementary question?

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. I thank the Minister for his reply. I have read the value for money report but it does not say much about the human element, which is sadly lacking in the direct provision system.

The Minister of State stated that residents receive a weekly direct provision allowance of ¤19.10 per adults. I have a receipt from one of the asylum seekers of his payment from the Department of Social Protection which states that his weekly flat payment is ¤186 and ¤166.90 of that is deducted, so he receives ¤19.10. Where does the ¤166.90 from the Department of Social Protection go? Who deducts it and where is it going? That is a significant amount of money. I am not sure if the Minister of State has information on it. Will he request the Minister to revert to me on that question. It would appear that we are paying more than ¤19.10 per individual and that we are paying ¤186. When I asked a number of people who deal with asylum seekers, and I showed some NGOs this slip, it was the first time they had seen one of them and they were as puzzled as I was as to where the money might have gone.

Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Ó Clochartaigh will understand that it is impossible to respond to the specific example he raises, which is not incorporated in the original matter. I am not being critical of him, but it is impossible to respond on the hoof to it. Certainly, we will see what we can do and if there is an additional question the Senator would like to have addressed. In fairness, he did say that the individual NGOs with whom he shared this information had not seen anything like that before. It does look that it is an unusual event. Certainly, we will have a look at that issue separately.