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

Cuirim céad fáilte roimh an Aire. I am delighted to see the Minister because an argument is often put forward that the Ministers are too busy to come to the House.

We may not agree on policy issues all the time but he always makes time to come to the House, which I appreciate, especially for an Adjournment matter.

I have raised again the issue of direct provision. Direct provision is an appalling system set up as a privatised system under a Fianna Fáil regime and needs to be reformed. In opposition the Minister was very vocal in respect of the way the system has been set up. The system comprises approximately 37 centres, seven of which are State-owned, the rest are former hotels, guesthouses, hostels, convents, a holiday camp and a mobile home site which are under private ownership by private companies.

Organisations such as the Irish Refugee Council, AkiDwa, Doras Luimní, other refugee support groups and many others have drawn attention to the position in direct provision. I shall use a number of quotes from the Irish Refugee Council to the effect that it has collected evidence that conditions in many direct provision centres are substandard to the point of inhumane. A culture of fear and the constant threat of transfer mean residents are frequently afraid to complain and are discouraged from interacting with inspectors. The Irish Refugee Council believes that some of the private businesses which operate direct provision centres are failing to fulfil their obligation to provide safe, hospitable and clean accommodation as per the RIA house rules and procedures in order to maximise their own profits. It also tells us that whole families, including both parents and children of schoolgoing age are often allocated just one room. Contrary to housing regulations, teenage children commonly share with siblings of the opposite sex. Single residents and mothers with one or two children are often required to share a bedroom and bathroom facilities. Broken, dilapidated furniture in common areas and infestations of mice, cockroaches and insects have been reported. There are also incidents of intimidation and harassment by staff at some centres. Allegations have been made of abusive and foul language directed toward residents and frequent threats of transfer. In addition, black African residents report that they are treated differently from residents who are white or of Arab origin. I note that the RIA, which came under the auspices of the Minister in 2010, reported that mobile homes in Athlone were damaged with hatchets after residents from neighbouring estates entered Lissywollen caravan site. While it was reported that the damaged property was repaired, the perimeter remained broken for some time.

Another case cited in the State sanctioned child poverty and exclusion report by the IRC stated that in early 2006 a sizeable section of a ceiling caved in on to the parents' bed and very close to their baby's cot. According to the resident they had reported the constant leak in the ceiling to the management on a number of occasions in the previous month. On many occasions I have reported my concern about the system. I am aware the Minister said he would consider reforming the system. I call on him to look at the role of profit-making companies in the system. As the system has to continue in some way perhaps the NGOs might be taken in as part of that regime. Will he consider issues such as opting into the EU reception conditions directive during the Irish Presidency?

Given that the system is privatised, which may be the nub of the problem, how many of the properties currently managed by NAMA are used as accommodation centres for asylum seekers under the direct provision system? Perhaps the Minister would itemise those properties as it is important that we get a full picture. Under the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill 2010 and at the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions the Ombudsman asked that her remit be extended to cover the RIA and asylum centres, among other things, because she was aware there were a number of issues that people wanted to make known to her but she did not have a remit to look at them. There has been widespread condemnation of these centres and the way they are run.

While I appreciate that the Minister has made inroads into processing applications for asylum, I hope the process can be speeded up for the benefit of all the people in the system. I know people who have been in the system between seven and ten years. That is a terrible sentence to inflict on anybody who comes to Ireland seeking refuge. Certainly there is a need for reform in the system. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply and appreciate the fact that he has taken the time to come to the House to take the matter.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Senator is aware we are developing a new piece of legislation to deal with residence, asylum and immigration issues. It had been my hope that it would have been published by now but it is part of the legislation waiting to be completed in the Attorney General's office. It is part of the Government's enormous legislative agenda and I have to take my turn with colleagues in the context of the different priorities. For my part this is priority legislation which will allow for a different approach in dealing with the issues of immigration and asylum.

The Senator strayed substantially beyond the question he put. One of the difficulties in this area is that there is not a single decision-making process. If an individual is refused asylum he or she can come back on another basis seeking to stay and there is a third basis on which one can seek to stay. If one is not happy with either of the legs of the process there is an appellate system, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, and there is also the issue of judicial review. Any person in the system for five, six, seven, eight or nine years is there because he or she made application for judicial review of some decision made during the process to the High Court. As a lawyer I take the view that individuals, if they feel their rights have been violated, are entitled to make applications to the courts and to have their issues properly adjudicated on. In so far as there are individuals in the system for the length of time the Senator has stated, it is because they usually have had all their applications refused at different stages and have taken a court application. There is an enormous backlog of these cases in the courts and dealing with some aspects of these cases often gets further delayed when issues are referred to the European court for adjudication.

Clearly, one of the difficulties in this area is that we have a number of individuals who seek asylum in the State who have genuine grounds for seeking asylum under the relevant international provisions in place and under our own domestic law. We also have a substantial number of people who are economic migrants and who present with stories seeking asylum which turn out to lack validity. There are individuals who adopt false identities, who pretend to come from troubled parts of the world when they do not. There are individuals who will claim to be in war zones and when the matter is further investigated it turns out they were in London, Birmingham or elsewhere when they alleged they were in the Sudan or some other troubled part of the world. This is a real problem in dealing with the asylum system.

As one who was very committed to human rights issues and constitutional issues for many decades before becoming a Minister, the practical difficulty in this area is the number of economic migrants who present false cases for seeking asylum, who manufacture histories that are untrue and who, essentially, block the system and create difficulties for the real asylum seekers. So far as there are difficulties in this area, they are spawned substantially by that problem. The difficulties are added to when children are born to them in Ireland who are innocent of their parents' conduct; that is, parents who have no valid reason to seek asylum and who have concocted and fabricated stories and because of the length of time in the system the children establish roots here. We need a more efficient and better system for dealing with applicants. That can only be fully in place when the new legislation is enacted. I hope it will be published later this year and that it will be processed swiftly.

The direct provision system is not ideal but it is a system which facilitates the State providing a roof over the head of those seeking asylum or seeking other grounds to be allowed, on humanitarian grounds, to stay in the State. It allows the State to do it in a manner that facilitates resources being used economically in circumstances where the State is under financial difficulty.

I do not claim that all direct provision facilities offered an ideal service in the past, but the system now includes a process of oversight of the properties in which direct provision is provided, as well as a complaints system. I wish to be very clear on this point. As Minister, I will not tolerate within the system any individual being discriminated against, racially abused or threatened in any shape or form. Within the context of the direct provision system, my officials have suggested to individuals who are providing facilities that they be upgraded where they are not proving adequate.

The Senator asked how many properties currently managed by NAMA are being used as accommodation centres for asylum seekers under the direct provision system. That question is based on a misapprehension as to the nature of the contractual relationship between the Reception and Integration Agency, the Department of Justice and Equality and those centres providing full-board accommodation to asylum seekers. The RIA is responsible for the accommodation of asylum seekers in accordance with the Government policy of direct provision and dispersal. As of today, there are 4,707 persons accommodated in 34 centres across the State. Details of these centres and the numbers being accommodated can be found on the RIA website. Seven of the centres are State owned, that is, while they are managed by private contractors under contract to the RIA, the land and buildings are owned by the State. The remaining 27 are commercially owned and operated.

The question of whether any commercially owned asylum accommodation centre is managed by NAMA is not relevant to the RIA. In fulfilling its general accommodation responsibilities, the latter does not own, lease or rent premises from commercial contractors. Rather, it contracts in a comprehensive range of services and facilities, including accommodation, housekeeping and so on, for a fixed sum over the period of a contract. It is a condition of contract with the RIA that the contractor has good title to the centre, but this does not specify either owning, renting or leasing the building concerned. The finance mechanism, whether loans or otherwise, used by the contractor for the provision of the service to the RIA is a matter solely for the contractor.

On the question of whether NAMA can divulge details of any property it may hold as security or where an enforcement action has been taken by the agency against a property, these issues are addressed on its website. My concern, as Minister, is that certain standards are maintained in direct provision centres such that the persons residing there are provided with accommodation that is reasonable and with food and other services as necessary. I wish we had a different system. In the current financial climate, however, there is no alternative. If, for example, the State were to close down direct provision, it would then have to fund the renting of apartments or homes by individual applicants, many of whom are economic migrants rather than genuine asylum seekers. I emphasise that some are genuine asylum seekers. It is not for me to pass judgment on any individual; we have a process for doing that. The State would inevitably incur enormous additional expense from a requirement to provide funding for renting properties and everything else that is necessary to maintain a home and feed a family.

I accept that the system is less than ideal, but it is one which, within the current resources of the State, offers a practical method of providing a roof over the head of individuals within the system. If we resolve our problems in this area such that all applicants finally have a determination and outcome, I would like then to have a system where all applications are determined within a maximum of six months. This will ensure that those residing unlawfully in the State are deported in a timely manner and those entitled to asylum or leave to remain for other reasons are facilitated in getting on with their lives in the shortest possible timeframe. It is not possible for that to happen, however, until we have a new legislative base. We must deal very carefully with these matters in order to ensure that people who are in the State unlawfully are subject to deportation. If that does not occur, it will be to the considerable disadvantage of those who seek to come here for economic reasons and who make proper use of our visa application process. The State would otherwise be overwhelmed by many thousands of economic migrants with no valid reason to come here and claiming to be asylum seekers.

Since taking office my Department has put in place systems which ensure that most cases are now processed extremely quickly and efficiently, in contrast to what happened in the past. However, the Senator is correct that a number of people have been awaiting a determination in their case for many years. Direct provision is the only way in which the State can afford to deal with these numbers at this time.

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

The figures I have been given show that in 2012 the Department spent €63.5 million on direct provision. My question regarding NAMA arises from the fact that properties in NAMA are ostensibly State-owned properties. If any of the companies contracted by the RIA to provide accommodation to asylum seekers are under the aegis of NAMA, are we not simply giving moneys from one arm of the State to another? In those circumstances, surely a deal could be done which would save money for the State, which saving could then be used to fast-forward the asylum applications process and so on. Will the Minister comment on this?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is incorrect in his conceptualisation of the position. I do not know whether any of the properties we are discussing are in NAMA, but the point is that it matters little either way. If one of the centres is in NAMA, all it means is that the company or individual who owns the property and is running the centre borrowed money from a bank at some time in the past which went towards the acquisition of the property and that the bank has subsequently, for whatever reason, transferred that loan to NAMA. The latter now holds the loan the property is secured against and the property owner is making the loan repayments to NAMA rather than the bank. If NAMA is recouping those loan repayments, it is doing so for the benefit of every taxpayer in the State in respect of the moneys that were put into the banking system to ensure those institutions remained solvent and functional.

In other words, the circularity to which the Senator referred is not in operation here. NAMA does not own the properties under its remit; it merely has each property secured against the loan the agency is seeking to have repaid. If any of the direct provision centres are under the remit of NAMA - as I said, I do not know whether this is the case - then in circumstances where the company that owns the property stopped repaying the loan, NAMA would then seek to repossess and thereafter possibly sell it. Any such property would cease to be a direct provision centre and one could not expect NAMA simply to present it to my Department. After all, the people of this country are paying a very high price to keep our banks financially viable. If money can be recouped that will eventually reduce the pressures taxpayers are facing, it is in everybody's interest that NAMA should seek to recoup it.

The manner in which the Senator conceptualises is just unfortunately incorrect. If he was correct, I might celebrate because it might be mean we could this at a lower cost but, unfortunately, he is not.