Topical Issue Debate

Industrial Disputes

Deputy Willie O'Dea

I thank the Ceann Comhairle's office for allowing me to raise this issue and I thank the Minister for attending. I wish to draw his attention to a gross injustice being perpetrated by a wealthy, large, multinational conglomerate against a group of some of the most decent, loyal and hard working people I am privileged to know. I am referring to the Wallis dispute in Limerick.

The Wallis shop is one of a number of units owned by the Arcadia Group, a multinational corporation headquartered in London. There is a long-standing agreement to the effect that, when the company makes someone redundant in Ireland, it makes a redundancy payment of five weeks per year's service - the statutory redundancy that it is legally obliged to pay plus three weeks of its own volition.

The company has suddenly changed the goal posts. In respect of the Wallis group of workers, it has decided that it will only pay 2.75 weeks per year's service, which is its statutory obligation plus 0.75. This is despite the fact that, only a few short months ago when the company was dealing with other redundancies in Dublin, it paid the five weeks even though the staff in question had nothing like the length of service of the staff in Limerick. These people have served the company loyally for as long as 20 years or more. They have built the business from the ground up and into the undoubted success that it is today.

The amount of redundancy is not the only issue. There are also issues about how the company is handling restructuring. While I do not have time to go into the matter in detail, suffice to say that the treatment being meted out to the employees in this regard can only be described as shoddy, shabby and contemptible.

We should look for a moment at the multinational corporation that is involved in this sort of skulduggery. The Arcadia group has over 10,000 employees and is privately owned by a gentleman called Sir Philip Green who is well known in financial and society circles throughout the world. Photographs of him are to be seen as often in the society pages as in the financial pages, besporting himself on his yacht in Monte Carlo with his rich and famous friends.

This company recently announced that it was in the acquisitions business. The announcement stated that "being debt free, gives us the balance-sheet and the flexibility for further acquisition". Incidentally, the company recently transferred £92 million from its Irish operation to its headquarters in the UK. When asked about that, the company said it was for house-keeping purposes.

This company is literally awash with cash and has benefited enormously from the loyal service of its Irish workforce, including the workers in Limerick. Is the Minister prepared to intervene in this case? Those people are walking up and down outside the store in all sorts of weather. The Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, knows exactly where it is. They are now in their 17th day and some of them are there for up to six days a week. They are determined to stay there for as long as it takes to vindicate their rights. Will the Government stand idly by, wringing its hands while loyal, decent, law-abiding people are being treated in this manner by an English-based multinational company?

Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Richard Bruton)

I thank Deputy O'Dea for raising this issue and I can certainly understand his concern. The matter involves a dispute over redundancy terms offered to ten staff who are based in the Cruises Street branch, which closed recently. Similar terms are being offered to staff based in the Childers Road branch, which is to undergo restructuring as part of a nationwide Wallis restructuring plan.

Pickets were placed at the two Wallis stores in Limerick on 23 September. I understand that Wallis, which is part of the Arcadia group, had agreed severance terms with the trade union Mandate of five weeks pay per year of service in respect of workers made redundant in 2012 in Wallis stores in Dublin, Wexford and Cork. However, I understand that for the Limerick staff, 2.75 weeks pay per year of service has been offered.

It is also my understanding that talks aimed at resolving this dispute had taken place - a development which I welcomed. The company put forward fresh proposals during these talks but I understand that these have been rejected by the Mandate trade union. I would point out that Ireland's system of industrial relations is voluntary in nature and responsibility for the resolution of industrial relations issues lies ultimately with employers and workers, and their respective representatives as appropriate.

As the Deputy is aware, the State provides industrial relations mechanisms to assist parties in their efforts to resolve any differences they may have. I urge the parties involved in this dispute to have regard to the availability of the industrial relations dispute resolution bodies to assist them in seeking a settlement and in addressing the underlying challenges of a major restructuring of the company. Experience constantly shows us that what often appears to be the most intractable of matters is capable of resolution where both sides engage constructively and in good faith in this voluntary process. The principle of good faith implies that both sides will make every effort to reach an agreement and endeavour, through genuine and constructive negotiations, to resolve their differences.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

Is the Minister aware that at the recent talks, which he welcomed, the company took some of their favourable proposals off the table and offered worse terms to the workers? Is the Minister also aware that the company advanced as one of its reasons for changing tack on the redundancy payment, the change in the statutory rebate that goes to employers that was introduced in the last budget? I predicted that some acquisitive, greedy companies would seek to pass this reduction on to their workers, which is precisely what has happened in this case. Is the Minister further aware that the strike is now in its 17th day? It is appalling to watch people out in all sorts of weather. People with family responsibilities are walking up and down constantly, sometimes for as much as six hours a day and until 9 p.m., in order to vindicate their rights.

In addition, is the Minister aware that as a result of a vote taken last night this dispute is about to spread to Dublin? The places affected in Dublin will be at Grafton Street, Clery's and Jervis Street. The Minister mentioned the State's industrial relations machinery. He must surely be aware that the workers have expressed their willingness to go to the Labour Relations Commission. So far, however, there has been no response from the company. As Irish law stands, the company is under no obligation to engage in the process at all. So where does that leave the workers? If the company persists in its refusal to engage with the industrial relations machinery of the State, will those people be expected to continue walking up and down outside that store ad infinitum in order to pursue their rights?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Ann Phelan)

I must ask the Deputy to conclude.

Deputy Willie O'Dea

The workers are watching and listening to what the Minister has to say here. Can he offer them any comfort or do anything to assist them in their present plight?

Deputy Richard Bruton

The Deputy is a seasoned Member of the House and will be aware that its voluntary nature has been a strong feature of the industrial relations scene in Ireland for many years. It is not open to Ministers to compel sides in respect of their position in any dispute of this nature. The Deputy will be well aware of people who are experienced in seeking to support the resolution of disputes. For good reasons, it has not been a pattern for political figures to get involved and seek to do a professional task of helping sides to find common ground.

I can understand the frustration of the Deputy and of those involved in this dispute. However, the system of professional support is there and I urge both sides to take up those opportunities. The employers should equally be open to engaging constructively with the relevant agencies. This is clearly a difficult dispute and, no doubt, its causes are many. None the less, we have professional agencies which are available to support both sides. I urge them to take up those opportunities.

Priory Hall Development

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

I welcomed the announcement on Monday from the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government that a "breakthrough" had been reached in the mediation process on Priory Hall within the 21-day deadline. I particularly welcome the opportunity and space given to residents to examine the framework of solutions proposed. It is significant that the Minister indicated that the Government would establish an oversight process to ensure that the framework is implemented effectively so that individual issues can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

We must allow the residents and owners of the Priory Hall apartments all necessary time to consider the proposals on the table and determine whether they are happy with what has been proposed. At this delicate time, I would not like to comment further on any of the reported key proposals in order to allow the residents and owners the space they need to make a decision on what has been put before them.

It is astonishing and appallingly sad, however, that the resolution now being considered could not have been brought forward much earlier in the almost two years that owner-occupiers and residents have spent out of their homes. As the House will remember, today is one of over 100 occasions on which I have raised the matter of Priory Hall since I contacted the Dublin fire chief on the matter in 2009.

There are some concerns on some of the broader aspects of the reported resolution, however.

For example, will the Minister be able to indicate to Dáil, even at a later stage, what arrangements are being put in place regarding the large number of apartments owned or formerly owned by the developer Tom McFeely given his responsibility for the debacle at Priory Hall?

There are grave concerns about the statement made by the Minister, Deputy Hogan, to the effect that the Priory Hall complex may be refurbished and managed by Dublin City Council as the agent of the Department. The Taoiseach has repeatedly and rightly said that Priory Hall was one of the worst examples of the failures of the Celtic tiger era. However, the failed planning and invigilation of the Priory Hall development was overseen by Dublin City Council under managers John Fitzgerald and John Tierney, both of whom have major questions to answer not only in regard to Priory Hall but on the wider serious problems of the North Fringe. The flotilla of developers in the North Fringe, led by Gerry Gannon, and including Tom McFeely, also bear a heavy responsibility for problems in the North Fringe.

Dublin City Council and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government have a track record of botched regeneration projects across Dublin city which take decades to complete or ultimately end up being demolished. Many are questioning whether Dublin City Council is the appropriate agency to refurbish Priory Hall and whether the North Fringe deserves a totally fresh start with a new much more competent overseeing body. It has been the view of constituents for a long time that Priory Hall should be demolished and that the part of Clongriffin Boulevard on which it stands should be totally rebuilt and redeveloped westwards to Belmayne and the proposed Clare Hall town centre. The Minister of State will be aware that part of Priory Hall is located on the boulevard connecting the proposed new two town centres for the North Fringe. The Minister, Deputy Hogan, indicated that demolition and reconstruction of the complex was being strongly considered.

Even a cursory cost benefit estimate based on information given in briefings to public representatives in 2011 and 2012 seemed to clearly indicate that demolition was the best and most cost effective option. Why has this view now changed and can the Minister of State provide information on the cost benefit analysis, including all external costs, on which this apparent decision is based? It is hoped that the shocking saga of Priory Hall will now swiftly be resolved to the satisfaction of the owner-occupiers and other stakeholders in the complex. The Minister and the Department need to address all of the wider issues of the North Fringe to which I have referred, including, for example, designation of the whole area as a strategic development zone and putting the North Fringe Forum on a statutory basis. The Minister of State may recall my proposals in relation to the North Fringe approximately 12 years ago.

Priory Hall aside, new residents and their representatives have had to deal with serious issues such as pyrite damage, insulation and fire safety issues and a failure to deliver key health, shopping and other services to the wider North Fringe. At this important time in the development of this new urban region, the Minister has an opportunity to undertake a fundamental review of the North Fringe area, which as the Minister of State will be aware, is approximately the same size as Waterford city. Planning and invigilation of this area has thus far left much to be desired.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Jan O'Sullivan)

I thank Deputy Broughan for raising this matter, in which I am aware he has had a strong interest for a long time. I am taking this topical issue on behalf of Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan.

As Deputies will be aware the Minister, Deputy Hogan, announced a welcome development in regard to Priory Hall earlier this week in the form of a proposed resolution framework resulting from a process of engagement with the stakeholders best placed to deliver the necessary solutions that he established three weeks ago. I echo the Minister's acknowledgement of the manner in which all parties concerned have engaged in good faith in this difficult and complex process and the very tight timeframe within which they have produced a framework for resolving a unique and exceptional situation which was not of their making.

Priory Hall residents have been kept abreast of the discussions and have been briefed on the framework. Understandably, they have asked for an opportunity to consider the proposals carefully. Therefore, to respect the wishes of the residents, details of the proposed framework will not be made public at this stage. I would welcome Deputy Broughan's support in this regard. In broad terms, the proposed framework recognises the exceptional and unique difficulties faced by the home owners in Priory Hall over the past two years and offers a fair and reasonable solution to their housing needs. The proposals are now being considered by the residents. I hope they will be found to meet their needs and thus provide them with an opportunity to get on with their lives. Discussions with the residents in relation to the proposed resolution framework are ongoing.

As regards the future of the Priory Hall complex, the intention is that in line with the framework proposal Dublin City Council will undertake to ensure that Priory Hall is refurbished into a desirable, high quality, safe location that will include a mix of social and private residential units in line with current housing policy. The Government also intends to establish an oversight process, with participation from the residents, to ensure that the framework is implemented effectively and to deal with specific issues that arise on a case-by-case basis.

The problems at Priory Hall are many and complex. Attempts to resolve them are currently at a delicate and critical point and I would remind all concerned who are not directly involved of the need for sensitivity in this regard. I understand that when the residents' response to the proposed framework is to hand later this week, the Minister, Deputy Hogan, will formally update all members on the outcome of the recent process of engagement. He is also mindful of the commitment given by the Taoiseach during Leader's Questions on 19 September 2013 and will arrange for a formal briefing of local representatives on the resolution framework and for regular briefing on key developments thereafter during the implementation phase of any agreement which may arise.

Priory Hall was one of the worst examples of the failures of the Celtic tiger years. I met with some of the residents and was told of the dreadful plight in which they found themselves, which as I said earlier, was not of their making. I am pleased that we now have a process in place to resolve the situation. New building regulations and building control reforms will also ensure that what happened in the case of Priory Hall will never happen again.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

I thank the Minister of State for her response and for her efforts over the past year and a half or so to try to resolve this matter. I also welcome her commitment that representatives of Dublin Bay North will be briefed during the implementation phase of any proposed agreement. Is the Minister of State prepared to visit the North Fringe and meet residents of the wider area and their representatives, perhaps through the North Fringe Forum, to hear their concerns and in relation to future plans for the whole area? I hope that next week the Minister for Finance will during his Budget Statement announce, on behalf of the Minister of State, a dynamic new programme of social housing development in the context of the 100,000 houses for which I have been asking for years. I would welcome some first steps in this regard next week.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

We are doing our best to recover the economy.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

Yes. However, as the Minister of State knows, I would have done it differently. I would still like to see those houses come on stream. The North Fringe will form part of this. I ask the Minister of State to ensure that the framework is appropriate in this regard. I understand the sensitivity of the issue at this point but will Dublin City Council play a key role in the architecture of any settlement in relation to any possible refurbishment? Is it a fait accompli that the complex will be refurbished rather than demolished-reconstructed?

The Minister of State will be aware from her work in this area that Dublin city and Fingal planners have prepared a new North Fringe Development Plan for the North Fringe in both counties. Proposals have been already made which are totally at variance with these plans. I again ask the Minister of State to consider the idea of the North Fringe as a strategic development zone, of which there are a number throughout the country that are working well. I also urge her to give statutory basis to the North Fringe Forum.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan

It is hoped that the ongoing discussions will provide a definitive resolution of the extraordinary difficulties experienced by the Priory Hall residents over the past number of years.

With regard to the part of this which comes directly within my remit as Minister of State with responsibility for housing, I met today with the new Dublin City Manager. I contend that the issue of Dublin regeneration is very much on track. While the former residents of Priory Hall are our most important consideration we do have to plan for the future of the area. I would be willing to consider any request from any body in the North Fringe to meet to address issues which come within my responsibility as Minister of State with responsibility for housing.

The most important task in the coming days is to find a resolution that will address the extraordinarily difficult position in which residents of Priory Hall have found themselves in recent years, having bought homes in the development in good faith. What will happen in future is a secondary consideration.

Road Tolls

Deputy Sandra McLellan

Anyone who drove through Fermoy in the 1990s and early 2000s and was caught up in inevitable traffic delays will remember a sign on the Dublin side of the town apologising for the delay and demanding a bypass. Following a long-standing campaign, the local community was very pleased when a bypass was finally built. In many respects, however, Fermoy did not benefit from the bypass because a toll was imposed almost immediately, resulting in large trucks continuing to pass through the town as haulage companies sought to avoid the toll. The problem has been compounded in recent years by two major floods which caused significant damage. Work on the necessary flood relief in Fermoy has meant the town is effectively a building site and continues to be a traffic bottleneck.

Members of the local community are annoyed the bypass was not included in a scheme under which roads tolls will be lifted on certain roads in November. On hearing of the proposal, local people were hopeful the town would benefit and the lifting of the toll on the bypass would convince hauliers to use the bypass and encourage people to visit the town for shopping in the run-up to Christmas. Moreover, the reduction in haulage traffic in the town would have presented an opportunity to complete some of the flood relief works.

I am disappointed Government Deputies failed to have the town bypass included in the roads on which tolls will be lifted in November. I hope the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport is willing to reconsider the matter and have Fermoy included in the scheme.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I welcome steps which will make business a little easier for hauliers. In light of the efforts the Government has made in this regard, I am pleased to give credit where it is due. The lifting of tolls for hauliers in November will help make the year a little easier for haulage companies, many of which are barely scraping a living as a result of the ongoing recession and the rising cost of keeping vehicles on the road. The lifting of tolls will help local economies by freeing up regional and local roads and giving local people greater access to local businesses.

In his press statement on the initiative, the Minister expressed concern that large numbers of heavy goods vehicles, HGVs, continue to use regional and local roads to avoid tolls and are driving through towns, villages and rural areas. This practice, he continued, has safety implications for other road users, residents and pedestrians. In addition, by using local and regional roads instead of custom built motorways, HGVs are adding to the wear and tear of the legacy roads network, the statement noted. If safety and avoiding wear and tear are the reasons for removing tolls for heavy goods vehicle, one would find it difficult to find a more suitable route than the Fermoy bypass for inclusion in the scheme. The case for doing so has been well made by Deputy McLellan.

Members of the local community in Fermoy very much hope the initiative will be extended to include the M8. The Revive Fermoy group, in particular, believed the inclusion of the town bypass would be a useful exercise. The chairman of Fermoy Town Council's traffic management sub-committee, independent councillor Michael Hanley, was under the impression the scheme would be a national initiative and expressed disappointment at the exclusion from it of the Fermoy bypass. Local people also believe its inclusion would help in terms of assessing the value of using the motorway route versus traversing the town.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Tom Hayes)

I thank the Deputy for the opportunity to address this issue and I apologise on behalf of the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar, for his absence.

The Minister has responsibility for overall policy and funding for the national roads programme. The implementation of individual national road projects is a matter for the National Roads Authority, NRA, under the Roads Acts 1993 to 2007, in conjunction with the local authorities concerned. Furthermore, the statutory powers to levy tolls on national roads, make toll by-laws and enter into toll agreements with private investors in respect of national roads are vested in the NRA under Part V of the Roads Act 1993, as amended by the Planning and Development Act 2000, and the Roads Act 2007. While toll rates vary in line with consumer prices, the base rates are built into the public private partnership financing arrangements which enabled the high quality motorway network to be built.

Completion of the major inter-urban motorway programme in recent years has greatly enhanced the freight industry's access to a high quality road network between key urban centres. Given the scale of the investment in our motorways, an issue of concern to the Minister is the number of heavy goods vehicles which divert on to regional and local roads to avoid tolls and drive through towns, villages and rural areas rather than use the custom built motorways. This practice has significant safety implications for other road users, residents and pedestrians and adds to the wear and tear of the legacy roads network. For this reason, earlier this year the Minister asked the National Roads Authority to examine the feasibility of lifting tolls for HGVs for one month on one or more motorways. He made clear at the time that the scope of the trial would be subject to consideration of the costs involved. He, therefore, asked the NRA to engage with all the toll companies to assess the costs associated with this initiative. Given the high costs associated with rolling out the scheme throughout the network, it was not possible to include all tolled roads in the scheme. Best practice for a short-term pilot such as this is to examine the efficacy of the scheme at a limited number of tolling points. The selection of the pilot tolls was made on the basis of analysis conducted by the NRA.

The Minister, through the trial involving a toll free month on certain routes, wants to ascertain if HGV fleet operators can be persuaded to make greater use of the motorways. He considers that this will provide a worthwhile opportunity to study traffic levels in detail and assess the implications. It will also give fleet operators an opportunity to evaluate the time and efficiency benefits of using the motorways in question. While all routes cannot be included in the trial, the findings arising from this month long survey will feed into general tolling policy.

Deputy Sandra McLellan

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. While I understand this is a pilot scheme, in light of the need to support businesses in Fermoy, does he accept that including the Fermoy bypass would make a significant difference for the town, especially given that flood relief works are taking place? Local businesses face significant pressures and some are closing with each passing month. Having been hit hard by severe flooding, Fermoy is struggling because the large number of haulage trucks passing through the town and ongoing substantial flood relief works have resulted in traffic choking up the town. Local people need a break and businesses need support. Will the Minister of State indicate whether a relaxation of tolls will be considered in future?

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I noted the Minister of State's point that the decisions in this matter were taken by the National Roads Authority in conjunction with local authorities. It is clear, however, that the NRA introduced the pilot scheme in response to a request from the Minister. This indicates that the Minister has a certain amount of influence on what roads will be included in the scheme. As the main road between Dublin and Cork, I do not understand the rationale for not including the M8 in the initiative. Moreover, why was December, the busiest month for hauliers, not chosen for the pilot scheme? In discussions with the NRA and local authorities, did the Minister insist that main roads be included in the pilot scheme? Did he supply a list of roads for inclusion or was the NRA allowed to choose which toll points would be included in the scheme? I am not clear as to the reason for the approach that has been taken.

Deputy Tom Hayes

I know Fermoy well.

I take the point the Deputies have made about difficulties for businesses and all the reorganisation. I passed through it over the weekend and I agree with what they have said that many trucks were going in. That was the reason for putting this in place. There was no reason to pick any particular month - November was the month the Minister selected. As I outlined earlier in my response, he realises there is a problem and we now need to wait and see. Obviously Fermoy has a particular difficulty. I will mention it to him again and put the particular case of Fermoy to him. I will not give any commitment. The Deputies outlined that it is a special case. At the end of the day it is down to the cost of doing this. The Minister obviously realises that there is a problem and he will try to deal with it.

Asylum Seeker Accommodation

Deputy Michael McCarthy

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this Topical Issue. Reports in yesterday's edition of The Irish Times paint a very bleak picture of lax health and safety standards, poor hygiene levels and gross overcrowding across several asylum accommodation centres across the country. Serious questions need to be asked about the operation of these centres. Nobody can now deny that there is a major issue with the direct provision system.

Almost 5,000 people, 1,700 of whom are children, are kept in direct provision centres. They are given accommodation, three meals a day and €19.10 per week while they wait for their application for asylum to be heard by the High Court. They live in hostel-like accommodation in dispersed centres around the country, with families often housed in one room with faulty heating, and shower and toilet facilities are often shared. They are neither allowed to work nor to claim State benefits while they are resident in the centres. They are therefore prohibited from supporting themselves and paying taxes. They have no say over where they are accommodated and can be moved from one of the 35 centres across 16 counties without consultation and at a moment's notice.

Concerns about the centres have been raised by various groups, including UN committees and by former Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly, who said there were real fears for the safety of children living in direct provision centres and warned conditions were not suitable. A Northern Ireland High Court judge also recently pointed to "ample" evidence of physical and mental health issues among asylum seekers staying in direct provision accommodation.

As time is limited, I will share a personal experience of one of them. A few years ago I called to one of them in County Cork where I felt the conditions were inhumane. If this were happening to Irish people abroad, we would campaign rigorously on the issue. There is a fundamental issue here of respect and human rights. There is huge denial in terms these people's entitlements. The situation is not sustainable and I urge the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, to conduct an investigation and take whatever action is necessary. In 2010, when in opposition, the Minister said this system was unsustainable. While I know this information is not fresh, nevertheless we have a report and we need to pay strong attention to its details.

Deputy Patrick Nulty

I thank the Minister for being here in person to address this very pressing issue. The average length of stay of the residents in direct provision centres is 47 months and more than 500 people have been living in direct provision for seven years. I have a number of concerns I would like the Minister to address on this topic which has had considerable discussion on the public airwaves and elsewhere in recent days.

Staff, who were already employed in direct provision centres before the change in legislation, do not have to be Garda vetted despite working with vulnerable adults and children. RIA's child protection policy is too weak and wholly inadequate for a modern democratic State. Direct provision centres are not included in HIQA's remit as parents are present, but this cannot be viewed as a normal parenting environment given that parents have no control over who is present with their children in communal areas, including communal bathrooms. During a committee debate on 12 October 2010, several members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children called for HIQA inspections to be carried out in direct provision hostels following a visit by members of the committee to a direct provision centre.

Since the Children First guidelines were introduced in 2011, some 171 referrals concerning children in direct provision have been made. Parents are afraid to make complaints, as they do not trust the system or the State where they are located. They essentially have to complain to the Department which is responsible for accommodating them as well as assessing their asylum applications.

Will the Minister introduce a single procedure to decide on protection claims as a matter of urgency to reduce the amount of time people will have to spend in direct provision? Will he ensure that the new legislation complies with various human rights instruments, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which forbids discrimination against children on the basis of the status of their parents? This includes immigration status. What steps will the Minister take to address the serious child protection concerns in direct provision centres?

Has the Minister considered the recommendations by both national and international commentators on reviewing the direct provision system? These include UN reports and the report of the special rapporteur on child protection, Dr. Geoffrey Shannon.

Deputy Áine Collins

I thank the Minister for attending to address this issue. We have 4,600 asylum seekers in direct provision, costing the State €62 million a year in 34 centres around the country. I am concerned about recent reports which appeared in a newspaper on Monday which paint a very grim picture of some of these centres. As I understand it, each centre is inspected three times a year. The Refugee and Integration Agency carries out these inspections and some are outsourced to QTS Limited, which is a private company based in Galway.

Part of the problem is that some people are living in direct provision for an average of three years and eight months, with many living in these conditions for up to seven years. Initially it was envisaged that they would only be living in direct provision for six months.

The legislation governing asylum is outdated and there appear to be many avenues to delay decisions for asylum seekers. I recognise the enormous work the Minister has done in trying to speed up the process for many people. As a result we now have far fewer asylum centres - down from 62 to 34.

I acknowledge there has been talk of new legislation with an immigration and refugee Bill to be published which might address some of these matters. How does the Minister foresee the current problems being resolved? As mentioned earlier, currently there are 4,600 people claiming asylum of which one third are children. One of the issues in the report was that many of these children are being minded by older children and are unsupervised in the centres. This is of concern to all of us from a health and safety perspective and for many other reasons. I understand there is an average of approximately 1,000 new entrants every year.

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter)

I thank the Deputies for raising what is an important issue. The first thing to be highlighted about yesterday's report in The Irish Times, which has been missed, is that it shows that the inspection regime put in place by the Reception and Integration Agency, RIA, of my Department is working. Finding things which are wrong and having them fixed is the purpose of a good inspection regime. This is not in any way to seek to minimise the contents of the reports which of course are treated with the utmost seriousness by the staff of my Department who have the difficult job of operating the direct provision system.

The Reception and Integration Agency is responsible for the accommodation of 4,400 asylum seekers in 34 centres throughout 17 counties. When the Government took up office in March 2011 that number was 5,900. There has been a reduction of 25% over the past two and a half years. RIA centres are occupied on a 24 hour, seven day a week basis. The report in The Irish Times was based on all inspection reports for seven specified centres over the course of 12 months and involved the release of 95 documents under freedom of information provisions. While, naturally, the worst elements of these reports were highlighted, in fact most inspection reports are positive. Again, this is not to minimise the content but to point out that they do not tell the full story.

Contractors have an important duty to comply with the terms of contracts they enter into with the Reception and Integration Agency. Some of the issues raised in these reports arise as a result of some residents unintentionally blocking fire exits, leaving children unattended, using rice cookers, etc. The responsibility to look after the children rests in fact with the parents who are in the centres and they have responsibilities in this area. I am not blaming the residents - far from it - but we should acknowledge that this is an ongoing challenge for staff working in the centres.

All 34 asylum accommodation centres in the direct provision system are subject to a minimum of three unannounced inspections a year, one by an independent company, QTS Limited, under contract to the RIA and two by RIA officials. In two serious cases 30-day notices were issued in which the contractor was told that the contract would be ended if problems were not rectified. In both cases the problems were addressed within 48 hours, requiring the lifting of the 30-day notice. Centres are also subject to inspection by fire officers and, in respect of food issues, to unannounced inspections by environmental health officers. It is incorrect to say that staff are not vetted; they are vetted. As part of their contractual obligations each centre must be inspected annually by a qualified and competent person with professional indemnity who must issue a certificate of compliance with regard to fire safety.

Reference was made to overcrowding. All RIA centres are subject to the requirements of the Housing Acts from 1996 to 2002. Where a family increases in size to the point that these requirements are no longer met, alternative suitable accommodation is offered. However, some families decline these offers and may decide to stay where they are until more spacious accommodation within an existing centre becomes available.

The RIA has a robust child protection system. The instances of children being left alone were dealt with immediately and education of parents and guardians with reference to their responsibilities is a key feature of any follow up. In all cases, the primary carers for children are their parents.

There was mention in the article of suicides being covered up. That is untrue. In the 14 years of RIA's existence only one person, a newly-arrived asylum seeker, can with certainty be said to have committed suicide and that happened while the individual was being detained in hospital. It did not happen in one of the centres.

Inspection templates have been changed and new training for staff took place earlier this year. All completed inspections carried out from 1 October 2013 will be published on the RIA's website. Transparency is important. By "completed" I mean the inclusion of responses by contractors to the report's findings. The RIA believes, as do I, that transparency is the key to maintaining standards. Residents have been assured time and again that complaints under the RIA house rules are legitimate and will not adversely affect their protection claims or lead to unwanted transfers. Any suggestions to the contrary are simply untrue and, unfortunately, may have the effect of dissuading residents from using the complaints mechanism in the way intended.

The direct provision system seeks to ensure that the accommodation and ancillary services provided by the State meet the requirements of asylum seekers while their applications for international protection are being processed. It is essentially a cashless system which provides them with full board accommodation free of utility or other costs. While accommodation services are provided by RIA, other State supports are provided by the appropriate Department or agency. For example, health services are provided through the HSE, social welfare supports through the Department of Social Protection and education through the Department of Education and Skills and so on. Except in exceptional circumstances-----

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

The remainder of the reply will have to be included later.

Deputy Alan Shatter

Perhaps the Acting Chairman will let me finish this one sentence. Except in exceptional circumstances no asylum seeker is obliged to live in RIA accommodation. Some choose to live on their own resources or with friends or family. Down through the years many have not availed of direct provision. Essentially, the system is intended for those who arrive in the State seeking international protection and who are otherwise destitute.

Deputy Michael McCarthy

I thank the Minister for his reply. It is a short timeframe. Are we considering conducting an examination of the centres? Let us consider the matter from a Government point of view. Are we satisfied that what the Minister has said is the case? Has the Minister considered signing up to the reception directive? This guarantees people who are in these centres certain rights and standards of accommodation. In fairness, it is not too much to ask that we treat people with decency or give them standards in terms of accommodation and so on and so forth. In some member states asylum seekers are allowed to work if their application for asylum has not been dealt with in six months. If the system here militates against their application for asylum and adds to the difficulty in terms of direct provision, then we must deal with the anomaly that it creates. Has the Minister considered whether Ireland should sign up to the reception directive?

Deputy Patrick Nulty

Not every member of staff working in direct provision centres has been Garda vetted. The social welfare supports to which the Minister referred amount to less than €3 per day for an adult and less than €1.50 per day for a child. Many of the people living in these direct provision centres have come from experiences of torture, whether physical, mental, sexual or psychological. These people require help and support. They should have their assessment judged quickly and humanely. I put it to the Minister that if he had to live in one of these centres for a week he might not agree that the protections and facilities in place are adequate.

Deputy Áine Collins

I thank the Minister for his response. The issue is about the time that people are in these centres. The old idea was that they would only be there for six months. It was to be a stop-gap to get them to a safe place when they arrived here quickly. It is about seeing how we can process their rights as quickly as possible. There is no way it should take between seven and nine years. That is a lifetime for a small child born here or who has come here, whatever the case may be.

We must go back to the legislation process to determine how to change it and ensure the loopholes currently in place and used are closed down - people are going back to court and delaying the process - in order that these people can be brought into a proper and normal environment where they can rear their children. Many of these people have children. The major issue is how quickly we can change the existing status and make the system far more efficient.

Deputy Alan Shatter

I will deal with some of the questions that have been raised. I was asked to look at it from a Government perspective. The reason there is an inspection system in place is in order that it is properly and adequately inspected and that where problems are identified, they are addressed.

That has been the consequence of the reports. Moreover, the issues highlighted in these reports, where problems exist, have been addressed and I wish to be clear in that regard.

While the direct provision system is not ideal and I do not pretend it is, it facilitates the State in providing a roof over the heads of those seeking asylum or seeking on other grounds to be allowed to remain in the State and to so do in a manner that facilitates resources being used economically in circumstances in which the State is in great financial difficulty. There is no open-ended pot of money available to deal with and address this issue, as there is not to deal with a broad range of issues that affect citizens of the State. More than 51,000 people have been accommodated in direct provision since early 2000 and, as I noted, 4,500 people are in the system at present. Since then, no asylum seeker has been left homeless by the failure of the State to provide basic shelter or to meet basic needs. It is of course to be expected that asylum seekers anywhere, if given a choice, would prefer to have independent accommodation, a right to welfare and work and so on instead of being restricted to a system of direct provision to meet their needs. To avoid misunderstanding, it should be noted that all European Union member states operate systems for dealing with asylum seekers which, in one form or another, greatly restrict their access to welfare, work or independent housing. The system in this State is at least on a par with, and often significantly better than, that in operation in many other states. I freely admit the system has its faults but it is misleading to characterise our system of providing for asylum seekers in any way as grossly inadequate or inappropriate. Within the financial constraints within which we must operate, I emphasise it guarantees that everyone claiming to be an asylum seeker who seeks to remain in the State is provided with a roof over his or her head if he or she is not in a position to provide it him or herself.

I accept Deputy Nulty's description of some of those who seek asylum. Some come from terrible background circumstances where they are genuine asylum applicants who are entitled to be granted refugee status or are entitled to be allowed to remain in the State on humanitarian grounds. However, some are economic migrants pretending to be asylum seekers. Moreover, some arrive in the State pretending to originate from countries where there is war and strife but on investigation of their cases, it turns out they come from somewhere entirely different from the state they claimed to have been from. I share the view that asylum seekers or those seeking to remain here should not be kept in the centres for the length of time that many are kept there at present. However, the difficulty is with the current legal system in which there is a myriad of different applications that can be made. They can take a substantial time and along each of the routes, when a decision is granted with which someone disagrees - I criticise no one for doing this - he or she can make applications for judicial review in the High Court. There now are High Court lists such that regardless of whether one is a genuine asylum seeker who believes one's case is being dealt with inappropriately or is an economic migrant masquerading as an asylum seeker, everyone knows that if one applies for a judicial review, it may take one or two years before one's case is heard and one can remain in this State.

In these circumstances, it is not possible to state that after six months, people should go back into the workforce in circumstances in which more than 400,000 people are unemployed in this State.

Deputy Michael McCarthy

What of the reception directive?

Deputy Alan Shatter

However, I will conclude by noting that my objective is to introduce reforming legislation to which I am committed. Unfortunately, due to the huge burdens imposed on the Attorney General's office, it has not yet been possible to finalise it. Under this legislation, which I expect to publish in 2014, in the case of anyone who makes application to be granted asylum in this State or, where he or she is not granted refugee status, seeks leave to remain or gives humanitarian reasons to stay, all of those applications can be heard in a single application. There then will be an independent appeals process that will ensure people feel their cases have been properly heard and dealt with at all levels and that there is no incentive to bring matters to the High Court.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan)

I thank the Minister.

Deputy Alan Shatter

Moreover, subsequent to the enactment of that legislation and while it may not be possible in all circumstances, I would like to achieve a position whereby the vast majority of such applications in which there are not unexpected complications or difficulties would be processed within six months. Consequently, in the case of people who arrive in the State and who have not an entitlement to remain, the integrity of Ireland's visa legislation would be maintained and they would be deported while in the case of those who are entitled to remain, they will be given the entitlement to remain without the delays that occur at present.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 9 Oct 2013