Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will investigate the living conditions of asylum seekers here in particular families with children (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16483/13]

Terence Flanagan (Dublin North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality the action that is being taken to improve the living conditions of asylum seekers in direct provision centres; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16526/13]

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will provide an update on the commitment in the Programme for Government to review the system of direct provision for asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17014/13]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 893, 897 and 918 together.

The first of these questions specifically refers to a letter written to the Deputy by a constituent who was concerned about what he had read in an Irish Times opinion article on 23 March, 2013 about children residing in the 35 asylum accommodation centres currently under contract to the Reception and Integration Agency (RIA) of my Department. There are approximately 4,800 persons in these 35 centres, about a third of whom are children under the age of 18.

The Direct Provision system remains a key pillar of the State's asylum and immigration 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. There are no cheaper alternatives to the direct provision system. In fact, if we were operating a system which facilitated asylum seekers in living independent lives in individual housing with social welfare support and payments, aside from the asylum 'pull factor' it would likely create, the cost to the exchequer would be double what is currently paid under the direct provision system. This was a key finding in the recent Value for Money Report on the direct provision system which was published in 2010 and is on the RIA website - www.ria.gov.ie. I have also explained the nature of the full board accommodation system provided; how RIA coordinates through other Government bodies a number of ancillary services to residents; how residents are offered free medical screening on arrival in the State and have access to health services; and how residents have access to primary and secondary education services, on the same basis as Irish citizens.

I will concentrate here on the issue of child protection which was the focus of the article. RIA takes the issue of child welfare, and the protection of residents generally, very seriously. RIA has had a child protection policy, based on the HSE's Children First Policy, in place since 2006. There is a specific unit in RIA called the Child and Family Services Unit, which is fully staffed and whose role is to manage, deliver, coordinate, monitor and plan all matters relating to child and family services for all asylum seekers residing in the direct provision system. It also acts as a conduit between RIA and the HSE, the latter having statutory functions in this area. Moreover, all staff in centres must be Garda vetted and comply with RIA's child protection policy, a copy of which is available on its website - www.ria.gov.ie. This is in furtherance of RIA's policy which has as its principal aim the minimisation of risk to children and vulnerable adults residing in its centres.

More generally, the rights of residents in RIA centres are, put simply, protected in three ways: (a) RIA's House Rules and Procedures which set out the type and standard of service that an asylum seeker should expect whilst residing in direct provision accommodation. The Rules set out the entitlements and obligations placed on centre management and on residents and, in the event that these aren't being met, a complaints procedure to be invoked by either party. This complaints system is considered by RIA to be broadly in line with the guidelines set out by the Office of the Ombudsman for ‘internal complaints systems’. (b) Over and above the House Rules themselves, the interests of asylum seekers are protected through regular 'clinics' in centres where residents can speak directly to RIA headquarters staff one-on-one without local centre management being present. (c) Inspections take place in centres, by RIA staff and by an independent company contract to RIA, to ensure that centres are adhering to their contractual obligations. In the coming few months RIA will begin to publish on its website completed inspection reports on each of the centres under contract to it. It cannot be emphasised enough that all inspections are unannounced. Inspections are not to be confused with ordinary day-to-day visits to centres by RIA staff in connection with operational, health or educational matters where management would know of their arrival in advance. Moreover, issues of concern are also brought to the attention of RIA by representatives of statutory or voluntary agencies working with asylum seekers, as was the case here. In no circumstance does a transfer take place because of a complaint made.

In relation to the issue of space, including the sharing of bedrooms and toilet facilities which is raised in the article, 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 'de-skilling', also mentioned in the article, the existing statutory position in Ireland provides that an asylum seeker shall not seek or enter employment. This prohibition is retained in the Immigration Residence and Protection Bill 2010 which I intend to republish later this year. Extending the right to work to asylum seekers would almost certainly have a profoundly negative impact on application numbers, as was experienced in the aftermath of the July 1999 decision to do so.

In relation to the broader asylum issue, I acknowledges that the length of time spent in direct provision and the complexity of the asylum process is an issue to be addressed. No specific reference is made in the Programme for Government to the Direct Provision system. But that system is inextricably linked to the surrounding asylum process and in the Programme there is a specific commitment to introduce comprehensive reforms of the immigration, residency and asylum systems. The Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill, which I intend to re-publish, should substantially simplify and streamline the existing arrangements for asylum, subsidiary protection and leave to remain applications. It will do this by making provision for the establishment of a single application procedure, so that applicants can be provided with a final decision on all aspects of their protection application in a more straight forward and timely fashion.