Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality his views on a report published by the Irish Refugee Council on 18 September 2012 which catalogues more than ten years of enforced child poverty, malnutrition and social exclusion caused by the system of direct provision; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40660/12]

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality if his attention has been drawn to the recent report by the Irish Refugee Council entitled State Sanctioned Child Poverty and Exclusion: the case of children in accommodation for asylum seekers; his views on same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40659/12]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 522 and 523 together.

The Irish Refugee Council (IRC) Report summarises many of the criticisms which have been made of the Direct Provision system since its inception over 12 years ago, concentrating specifically on issues relating to children. In support of its criticisms, it cites individual cases in order to draw general conclusions about the system. Where these anonymised cases can be identified, the exact circumstances do not sustain the general point being made.

This reply cannot deal with each and every point raised in the report, so instead I will summarise my position by reference to the recommendations contained therein. Some of the recommendations - such as allowing asylum seekers work after 12 months, reinstating child benefit, allowing residents to choose and prepare meals themselves - are at odds with long standing Government policy in dealing with the issue of asylum, a key pillar of which is the Direct Provision system. I, and previous Ministers for Justice and Equality, have explained in response to previous Dáil Questions how the normal structures dealing with homelessness could not cope when the number of asylum seekers arriving in Ireland increased dramatically, and how the Direct Provision system was the only realistic accommodation solution.

In relation to children living in a safe environment, the Reception and Integration Agency (RIA) of my Department, charged with running the Direct Provision system, takes the issue of child welfare, and the protection of residents generally, very seriously. All staff in centres must be Garda vetted and comply with RIA's Children Protection policy. One recommendation in the IRC report refers to the need for accommodation centres to be in good condition and that heating, hot water and cleanliness should be guaranteed. This recommendation is, in fact, a condition to be met by all contracted to provide accommodation. RIA has in place contractual obligations in this regard, backed up by an inspection system which has been described in answers to previous Dáil Questions.

The report recommends that RIA should consult with families in relation to their religious and cultural needs before being dispersed to an accommodation centre. RIA does not, and will not, designate centres as being specifically for one ethnic or cultural group. The key objective for RIA is the provision of accommodation and coordination of services to asylum seekers who would otherwise be homeless. The system must operate within the inevitable constraint that RIA can only accommodate persons in centres where suitable vacancies exist. RIA will always consult management in accommodation centres who have knowledge of local services and who will advise newly arrived persons of cultural and religious facilities in the area.

In relation to the issue of space generally, including the sharing of bedrooms and toilet facilities, there are a number of things to be said. Firstly, in sourcing accommodation RIA must ensure that the basic legal conditions, in terms of capacity and toilet and bathroom facilities, are met. Secondly, in relation to room sharing, where it comes to RIA's attention that accommodation is not suitable for a family where, for example, its size has increased, alternative accommodation in another centre is offered. In some cases, this offer is not accepted and families prefer to stay in a centre. Thirdly, in relation to families having to share bathrooms, a majority of families living in the system have sole access to their own bathroom and toilet facilities. Whilst the nature of Direct Provision is such that en suite facilities are not guaranteed, RIA will continue to seek over time to increase the percentage of families having access to non-shared bathroom/toilet facilities.

In relation to the recommendation regarding education, in addition to all asylum seeker children being able to avail of mainstream primary and secondary education, they may also avail of the Department of Social Protection's Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance. Further supports are provided to families through the Community Welfare service in the form of Exceptional Needs Payments (ENP's) to address once-off needs, including funding child-related activities. Children in pre-school year also avail of free placements in preschools under the Early Child Care and Education (ECCE) Scheme. Preschools are available on-site at some of the larger centres but the choice of pre-school under the scheme is a matter for the individual parents to decide.

In relation to the recommendation regarding homework space, all family centres with school going children are asked to set aside a quiet space where children can do their homework under parental supervision.

In terms of play spaces for children, the Direct Provision system is roughly analogous to other types of accommodation where children would reside, be it houses with gardens or apartment buildings. Some centres have on-site playgrounds and some do not. Children in centres can access recreational facilities available in the locality in which they are living. Centre management work with local schools, community groups, sports clubs and NGOs to link children and families into community initiatives, sports and other activities to ensure access to the best available package of services. Many centres will, for example, facilitate parties and will also facilitate NGOs who organise outings etc.

Direct provision has been criticised since its inception, and no system is incapable of continuous improvement. RIA welcomes scrutiny in this regard. But it important also to acknowledge that no asylum seeker who has sought international protection from this State has ever been left homeless; that residents get nourishment on a par with, and in some cases superior to, that available to the general population; that they receive a health service on the same basis as Irish citizens; and that children are provided with primary and secondary education in the local community on the same basis as the children of Irish citizens.

An issue to be acknowledged in the IRC Report is the length of time spent in the direct provision system. On the matter of application processing times and consequent length of time spent in the direct provision system, some cases can take significantly longer to complete owing to, for example, delays arising from medical issues or because of judicial review proceedings. All asylum applications and appeals are processed in accordance with the Refugee Act 1996 and high quality and fair decision-making in all cases continues to be a key priority at all stages of the asylum process.

For the sake of completeness, it is necessary to point out that persons who are refused a declaration under section 17 of the Refugee Act 1996, as amended, enter what is commonly referred to as the “leave to remain” process which generally has two elements to it: an application for subsidiary protection and further consideration to be given under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended. This is separate from the asylum or refugee status determination process. The processing of cases at this point is also complex and extremely resource intensive and there are no quick or easy decisions to make. Given the life changing consequences for the persons involved, these are decisions which must be taken with the most scrupulous care and attention.

I have taken steps to speed up the processing of applications, primarily by redeploying staff from the refugee determination bodies. The Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill, 2010 which I intend to republish in the near future provides for the introduction of a single procedure to determine applications for protection and other reasons to remain in the State. This should substantially simplify and streamline the existing arrangements. This reorganisation of the protection application processing framework will remove the current multi-layered processes and provide applicants with a final decision on their applications in a more straightforward and timely fashion.