The overall time limit for Question Time remains the same, one hour and 15 minutes in total, with 30 minutes for Priority Questions and the remaining time for Oral Questions. For each question, the individual time limit remains the same, with the addition of 30 seconds for a brief introduction to each question or group of questions. Where questions are grouped for reply, the Deputy whose question is first in the group may introduce the group of questions. Only one Member may introduce a question or group of questions under Standing Order 38(1)(a). A question will not be taken if the Deputy who tabled the question is not present in the Chamber.
Priority Questions
Child Protection Issues
Niall Collins
Question:61. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the timeframe for the completion and publication of the investigation into the removal of two children from members of an ethnic minority; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46615/13]
The question is based on the recent taking into care by the Garda Síochána of children in Athlone and Tallaght.
It is important to ascertain what lessons can be learned from these events. For that reason, I requested a full report from the Garda Síochána and I expect it to be delivered to me by Friday, 8 November. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs has similarly requested a full report from the HSE on the matter and it is expected to be delivered to her within the same timescale. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and I have requested the Ombudsman for Children, Emily Logan, to carry out an examination of the matter. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and I have confirmed to the Ombudsman that we will provide the two reports requested from the Garda Síochána and the HSE upon their receipt on 8 November.
In order to ensure that the Ombudsman for Children is in a position to comprehensively and independently address all issues arising out of these events in so far as An Garda Síochána is concerned, I have already announced my proposal to appoint her, in accordance with section 42 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 as amended by section 42 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007, to conduct an inquiry. This is intended to ensure that she has sufficient powers to carry out an inquiry and is in a legal position to access all information that she may require from An Garda Síochána. She is already vested with legal powers in respect of any engagement she may undertake arising out of these matters with the HSE.
I am not in a position to inform the Deputy of the exact timeframe for the completion of the Ombudsman for Children's report. The Deputy will appreciate that the Ombudsman for Children will be carrying out an independent investigation and will take the time she believes she needs to ensure that her investigation is comprehensive so that her report can address these matters fully to her satisfaction. Upon the completion of this important task I look forward to receiving from her a detailed report containing such observations and recommendations as she may make. I believe this is an appropriate response to the issues that have been raised and I am grateful to the Ombudsman for Children for agreeing to undertake this task.
Child protection cases can, of their nature, involve complex and difficult choices. It is important now that an appropriate period of time be allocated to allow this process to take place and that people do not prejudge its outcome.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
It is also important that we do not undermine faith in the child protection services. Of course people should report to the authorities any reasonable concerns they have about the safety of children. However, in seeking to ensure that the welfare of children is safeguarded and that every child in this State is afforded, where necessary, the protection of the State, it is important that no group or minority community is singled out for unwarranted attention, or indeed suspicion, in child protection issues.
We all agree it was difficult in this situation for An Garda Síochána to get the balance right. Obviously, protecting vulnerable children and children at risk is a priority for all of us, but we also have to recognise people's basic human rights. As I stated in my introduction, there were two cases, in Athlone and Tallaght.
It must be pointed out that there are also data protection issues, because those children were no sooner taken into care than it was fully across the media. I ask the Minister whether he has contacted the Data Protection Commissioner in that regard. He might comment on the matter.
For me it is not about the allocation of blame, but there must be proper accountability, given that there is impending legal action or that it has been flagged.
The Minister stated that he is awaiting the Garda Commissioner's report, which I believe he will receive on Friday next. Specifically, that report needs to spell out what was the immediate risk based on which An Garda Síochána engaged section 12 of the 1991 Child Care Act, why the HSE was not asked to conduct an assessment and why other children in the same locations from the same community were not taken.
The Minister stated that he had asked the Ombudsman for Children, Ms Emily Logan, to produce a report. Why has he not tied in the Garda Síochána Ombudsman to conduct a joint report, given that office's expertise in investigating the activities of An Garda Síochána? Both offices have dovetailed on previous assignments.
I have not been in contact with the Data Protection Commissioner. It is a matter for him if he wants to investigate an issue. However, I agree with the Deputy that it is a matter of concern that these matters concerning two children appeared in newspapers in the context of an issue that, under the child care legislation, should be dealt with confidentially. That is one of the matters that I will be asking the Ombudsman for Children to look into.
The purpose of asking the Ombudsman for Children to engage with this matter is that, essentially, this relates to child care and also to the question asked by the Deputy - that is, the immediate risk to the children which warranted the invocation of section 12 of the Child Care Act 1991. The Garda Ombudsman Commission would normally investigate allegations of Garda misconduct. This concerns actions taken in respect of two particular children, the appropriateness of the actions, the obligation on An Garda Síochána to protect the welfare of children and the powers the Garda exercises under section 12 of the Child Care Act. I do not want in any way to prejudge the consideration of the Ombudsman for Children but I anticipate that whatever report she makes will be published and will be available for people to consider and comment on, and if there are any recommendations arising from her report they will be taken with great seriousness.
It merits consideration by the Minister and his Department to complete such an investigation in the first instance. Serious consideration should be given to a joint assignment by the said two ombudsmen, Ms Emily Logan and the Garda Ombudsman. The Garda Ombudsman has a lot of experience in dealing in detail with investigations into An Garda Síochána. I do not wish to attribute blame, but there is a lot of disquiet in the community about what happened. We all recognise that the Garda must try to get the correct balance to protect vulnerable children.
In as much as possible within the constraints of the current issue, I ask the Minister to describe the particular advice he may have received from the Attorney General on the impact on any child protection legislation. Has the Minister discussed the matter with the Attorney General and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs? Does he intend to amend child protection legislation?
Under section 42 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007, the Ombudsman for Children will have all the powers she requires to fully and properly look into this matter. I know it is also of concern to the Deputy that we protect the welfare of children. We could swap a whole range of questions on which we would agree that answers were needed. Was it in the interests of the welfare of these children that this action be taken? What was the immediate risk to their safety that resulted in a judgment that the action be taken? What was the connection in the context of each of the cases between An Garda Síochána and relevant HSE personnel? Were relevant HSE personnel available to An Garda Síochána? In this context, the Deputy needs to understand - I know he is aware of the fact - that this provision, section 12 of the Child Care Act 1991, has been utilised on many occasions to provide immediate protection for children whose safety is at risk. It is very important that members of the public make these reports if they genuinely believe a child's safety is at risk. It often falls on the shoulders of members of the Garda force in a very short time to have to make judgments on whether children will be taken into temporary care. These matters end up being dealt with by the District Court at Children Court level, which is appropriate. However, I will not prejudge any aspect of this matter. It may well be more a matter of judgments supplied and procedures than there being a frailty in section 12 of the Child Care Act 1991. I will not prejudge whether any amendment is required to that Act. I will await the Garda's report which I will furnish to the Ombudsman for Children. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, will furnish the HSE's report. We will then consider the outcome of that report.
Penalty Points System
Pádraig MacLochlainn
Question:62. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his plans to request an independent investigation of the management of the fixed charged notice and penalty points system following the recent report from the Comptroller and Auditor General, as well as the ongoing media reports regarding the alleged termination of penalty points for journalists, judges and a State solicitor. [46620/13]
I invite Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn to introduce the question.
The Minister has the question. I will use my 30 seconds more effectively after he has spoken.
I am sorry, but the Deputy has to use the time at the start.
It is a nonsense. For God's sake, everyone has the question. What can I say about a question that is already available?
This is the first time I have heard anyone on the Opposition side of the House complain he or she has been given a speaking slot. I think it is for the benefit of those who actually watch these proceedings and those who are in the Visitors Gallery in order that they know what the question is about. It is welcome that the Deputy is doing this within the rules of the House. It may well be in the context of the question tabled that the Deputy wishes to extrapolate. It is my understanding this is an option, but it is for Deputies to decide how they want to use the new procedures available.
I very much welcome the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General in his report on the Garda fixed charge processing system. The report followed the report by Assistant Garda Commissioner, John O’Mahoney, on allegations of the improper cancellation of fixed charge notices. I published the O’Mahoney report and also a related report by the Garda professional standards unit earlier this year and referred them to the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality.
There are some differences in the extent of the reports in that the O'Mahoney report was an examination of specific allegations rather than a general examination and it covered a longer period than the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, of three and a half years compared to two years. However, both reports identified approximately the same rate of cancellation of fixed charge notices of up to 5%.
Most importantly, the O’Mahoney report broadly identified the same key issues of concern relating to the operation of the fixed charge processing system identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General - namely, a failure to follow cancellation procedures in a significant number of cases, a lack of adequate record-keeping, and what in some cases was quite frankly too great a readiness to accept unconvincing justifications for speeding and other road traffic offences. The Deputy will recall that when the O'Mahoney report was published, I referred to some of the decisions made as being "exotic".
There is no doubt that the findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General reinforce the concerns identified by the O’Mahoney report about weaknesses in the fixed-charge notice system. What is needed now is corrective action to tackle the concerns identified by these two reports, and I am glad to say that action has been and will continue to be taken. Disciplinary proceedings have been taken against a number of members of the Garda Síochána, and a number of others have been advised of the requirement to follow correct procedures. A new Garda directive on the cancellation of fixed charge notices was issued to the entire force on 30 August 2013.
The Comptroller and Auditor General's report revealed that half of summonses were not served and one in five motorists facing fixed-charged notices were getting off. It was much clearer than the previous report carried out by An Garda Síochána, and that is why we must have an independent examination of the issue. Just as important, there are ongoing reports in the media about judges, a State solicitor and senior journalists who allegedly had penalty points terminated. I am not aware of any court cases being taken by the people who have been accused of this, so until court cases are taken I can only assume the reports are correct.
For public confidence to be restored to the system, people must see that the same rule applies to everybody no matter who they are. The vast majority of gardaí in Garda districts enforce the law properly, as was made clear in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, but some, unfortunately, do not. In some areas, people of influence were able to get points terminated, which is unacceptable. It is not acceptable to the Minister, to me or to anybody else. Could we have an independent examination that could clear up the issue once and for all so that we can start afresh?
At this stage we have had an examination as published in the O'Mahoney report, another Garda report and, now, the Comptroller and Auditor General's report. There is a need to significantly tighten procedures for cancellation and that should result from the instructions given on 30 August 2013 by the Garda Commissioner. He has accepted and will implement specific and helpful recommendations contained in the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on further improving the fixed-charge notice system and how it interacts with the Courts Service and driving licence system.
In the context of the Deputy's reference to people getting off, the courts are independent and there have been a number of instances in which people have been summonsed and gone to court but judges have not imposed fines on them. That is a matter to be dealt with by the courts, with judges exercising their independent judicial discretion. It is certainly not an issue into which it would be appropriate to conduct any inquiry.
As I previously indicated, I have referred the two Garda reports to the independent Garda inspectorate to seek advice on any additional measures that may be desirable, and I expect to receive a report from the inspectorate in the near future. As I have also mentioned, reports have been referred to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, which is independent. If it has anything further to say on the issue or recommendations that have not already been made, they will be given serious attention.
Is the Minister concerned about allegations made by a number of media outlets, including The Guardian, which is one of the most respected international media outlets, that senior journalists who worked directly with gardaí had penalty points terminated? Is he concerned about media reports that at least two judges allegedly had penalty points terminated? There was also a report about a State solicitor. No person in the State could accept it if what has been alleged actually happened, particularly as these people are supposed to hold justice and democracy to account. How does the Minister feel about those allegations?
As the Deputy should know if he has ready the O'Mahoney report and the larger report furnished to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, all of the issues he has raised have been addressed. There is nothing new in any of these matters as far as I am aware.
Nothing new has been reported in the media other than a look back at matters that were the subject of public comment and controversy earlier this year. These are all issues that are addressed within the O'Mahoney report and the detailed report that was published subsequently. The Deputy is a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality and if issues arise from the report that he believes are appropriate to pursue in the public interest, he should pursue them. I would be interested in any conclusions the joint committee reaches on what are issues of importance, but let us not exaggerate the situation. The vast majority of fixed-charge notices are paid and no issue arises. In 50% of the notices that were cancelled there were incontrovertibly valid reasons for their cancellation, such as cases in which a person received a notice and it turned out that the registration number of the car in question was not the same as that of the person's car. A range of issues of that nature arose where fixed-charge notices were issued to what turned out to be unmarked Garda cars on duty and in pursuit of individuals.
I thank the Minister. We must move on to the next question.
Let us not exaggerate the extent of the difficulty in this area. I personally look forward to and welcome the changes that have been implemented to tighten up procedures. I have no doubt the Garda Commissioner is keeping a very strict watch on the manner in which matters are being dealt with.
Crime Prevention
Finian McGrath
Question:63. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the actions being taken to deal with violent crime and gangland murders on our streets. [46618/13]
I raise the issue in the context of events in recent days of which the Minister is well aware - that is, the actions and violence that have taken place on our streets among these criminal gangs. There is huge concern among the public, particularly in the wider community. Their concerns are based on public safety. What action is the Minister taking to deal with this major crisis?
The Deputy has used his 30 seconds well in raising a serious issue. It is an important matter. I can assure the Deputy that violent crime, including the brutal murders related to the activities of criminal gangs, is being tackled aggressively by An Garda Síochána with all necessary resources deployed in the investigation and prosecution of these appalling incidents. The organised criminal activity which gives rise to this violence is also being targeted by An Garda Síochána across a number of fronts, including through the use of focused intelligence-led operations by specialist units such as the serious and organised crime unit and the work of the Criminal Assets Bureau.
While the challenges posed by gangland and organised crime remain clear to all, week in, week out, An Garda Síochána is making arrests and bringing persons before the courts, with substantial sentences handed down in many instances. The drug trade is being tackled relentlessly, with drugs valued at €220 million seized by the Garda and the Revenue Commissioners between 2011 and 2013, as well as substantial seizures of the other trafficked and counterfeit goods from which organised crime profits. The Garda has also had considerable success in disrupting the activities of paramilitary groups which are inextricably linked to organised crime and which remain intent on thwarting the democratic will of the Irish people, North and South.
These law enforcement operations are underpinned by a comprehensive framework of criminal law measures which are being fully utilised by the Garda. I have, however, made it clear to the Commissioner that I will look positively at any legislative changes he may wish to make which would render our efforts more effective. I also draw attention to the recent publication of new legislation to provide for the establishment of a DNA database to assist the Garda Síochána in tackling crime. The intelligence generated will be invaluable to the Garda and will greatly assist in the investigation of a wide range of serious crimes, including homicides.
The Deputy will also be aware that the most recent recorded crime statistics, which were released at the end of last month, show that crime is falling in most categories, including homicide, kidnapping, weapons and explosives and drug offences. In fact, total recorded crime was down 8% over the 12 months to the end of June 2013, which reflects well on the work of An Garda Síochána. The crime figures show that those involved in criminal gangs and the evil drugs trade which funds their operations are being robustly opposed, and the Commissioner and I are united in our determination that these efforts will be vigorously maintained.
I thank the Minister for his response. I wish to focus on three major questions. First, in light of what has happened in recent days, with evidence of young people being shot and their body parts being found in rivers and streams, does the Minister accept that for many of those people life is very cheap?
When the Garda is tackling these crimes, are there sufficient resources on the ground to deal with the criminals and criminal gangs in question?
The Minister mentioned confiscated drugs worth €220 million. I warmly welcome this, but a huge amount of drugs is getting through. The Minister referred to crime rates dropping, but he is referring to reported crime. Much of the gangland crime is under the radar and has not been reported. Communities are being intimidated, as are young people, and this does not even reach the Garda station. How can the Minister respond to these trends in the real world?
There is no reason to believe crime is reported less or more now than it was in the past. This island endured 30 years of violence perpetrated by subversive groups, in addition to gangland criminals.
On the resources issue, I am assured by the Commissioner that the Garda Síochána is devoting all the necessary resources to the investigation and disruption of serious crime. It is wrong to characterise this in any way as a budgetary issue. There have been serious gun and gang crimes for several years in the State, including a higher number of gangland murders when the number of gardaí was higher than it is now. The Deputy will be aware that there are a number of gangs in our midst that will stop at nothing. This demands a determined and targeted response from the Garda and that is what the force is engaged in. I agree with the Deputy that there are individuals engaged in gangland crime for whom life is cheap, who have no moral compass and who are completely and utterly lacking in insight as to the devastation they cause. There are gangs at war with one another. The Garda is targeting these gangs and it has been enormously successful in bringing before the courts individuals engaged in murders on the streets. I condemn totally the barbaric incident to which the Deputy referred and which resulted in the body parts of an individual known to have a criminal background being found in recent days. There is no excuse or explanation of any kind for such conduct. It is of the greatest importance to the Garda that it have the support of all the community in its work.
The Minister must ensure this matter does not go off the political agenda. Many people, particularly those in disadvantaged communities, seem to believe it has gone off the radar. The gangs must be targeted and driven out of business because they are creating havoc, much of which is not seen and only some aspects are noted in the courts, particularly in sentencing and such issues. Much of the damage is never seen. The destruction of many families and much of the intimidation never reach the headlines.
From the many arrests that have taken place in recent months and the many successes of the Garda, not only in detecting crime and arresting individuals but also in the seizure of the goods to which I referred, no one could possibly think this matter has gone off the agenda. This is a central agenda of An Garda Síochána and it results in the very specific and successful targeting of gangs and individuals. As the Deputy knows, the difficulty is that when individuals from a gang find themselves sentenced to a term of imprisonment, others appear on the scene and seek to take their place. Gardaí, with great bravery, put their lives at risk in facing individuals who have no moral compass or compunction about taking life. The Garda, with my full support and that of the Commissioner, is extremely effective in tackling the individuals in question, bringing them before the courts and securing convictions.
Insolvency Service of Ireland Staff
Niall Collins
Question:64. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the anticipated number of cases to be completed by the personal insolvency regime by the end of 2013; the total number of personal insolvency practitioners appointed to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46616/13]
For the benefit of those watching, I will outline my question which relates to the work to date of the Insolvency Service of Ireland. My concern arises because we missed a number of deadlines in getting the service up and running. There is a question mark over the appointment of personal insolvency practitioners who numbered so few at the outset of the service.
I can advise the Deputy that as of 1 November 2013, a total of 72 personal insolvency practitioners are currently authorised by the Insolvency Service of Ireland, ISI. In addition, as of the same date, 18 Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, companies, representing 47 individuals, are authorised to act as approved intermediaries. The location and contact details of approved intermediaries and personal insolvency practitioners are publicly available on the relevant registers on the ISI's website, www.isi.gov.ie. It is expected that the number of authorised approved intermediaries and personal insolvency practitioners will increase further over the coming months.
It might be noted that the ISI has added a statistics page to its website which provides key information such as the number of approved practitioners, the number of information requests to the ISI and associated pertinent information. I am advised that the statistics page will be updated on a monthly basis and I would encourage Deputies to consult that page in order to get the latest information.
The ISI began accepting applications for the three new debt relief solutions introduced by the Personal Insolvency Act 2012, as amended, on 9 September 2013. The ISI is currently processing a number of applications. As I have previously advised the Deputy, the ISI has stated that, in the interest of confidentiality, it will not be providing details or breakdowns of the numbers of applications for the various debt relief solutions received or being processed at this time. The ISI fully intends to provide quarterly statistics once a statistically meaningful number of applications have been processed.
During the course of the Personal Insolvency Bill's passage through the Oireachtas, I originally indicated provisional estimates of applications in one full year of operation of the three new debt relief solutions to be 15,000 for debt settlement arrangements and personal insolvency arrangements and 3,000 to 4,000 for debt relief notices.
It is a welcome development that the Circuit Court recently issued the first protective certificate for a debt settlement arrangement. As the Deputy will be aware, debt settlement arrangements and personal insolvency arrangements are conducted in a two-stage process. The protective certificate at stage one offers a 70-day window for practitioners to develop a proposal to the satisfaction of the debtor and creditors. This means that the first debt settlement arrangements and personal insolvency arrangements will issue in the near future, that is, approximately 70 days after a protective certificate has issued.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The Deputy refers to completed cases in his question. However, given the nature of the processes involved, cases will not actually be completed by the end of the year as the arrangements in question are processes that can range in duration from three years up to seven years. It is important to note that as soon as the protective certificate issues, debtors are protected from any action that creditors, subject to the protective certificate, may be inclined to take.
The ISI continues to engage with key stakeholders on a number of issues and is working on standardising a personal insolvency arrangement template, establishing a complaints panel for complaints of improper conduct by personal insolvency practitioners, establishing a personal insolvency practitioner education oversight committee and personal insolvency forum facilitation, the integration of the Office of the Official Assignee and is preparing for the anticipated increase in bankruptcy cases.
I am sure the Minister will agree that with only 72 personal insolvency practitioners operating, the service is wholly inadequate. If one averages that out across the counties of Ireland, that amounts to only three personal insolvency practitioners per county. There are approximately 120,000 mortgages in arrears of more than 90 days and there is another large cohort of people who are struggling with personal debt. Red C published some interesting statistics in StubbsGazette recently, which estimated that up to 25,000 people will seek to avail of the service. It is wholly inadequate.
When the service went live the number of personal insolvency practitioners was extremely low. There are now 72 practitioners registered. What does the Minister intend to do to incentivise more people to become personal insolvency practitioners? As with the old adage, 'justice delayed is justice denied', if people cannot get this service, their problems will not be resolved. It was reported on news bulletins this morning that AIB has come to an arrangement with the Irish Mortgage Holders Association whereby a parallel type debt solution system will operate, outside of the personal insolvency legislation. It will be an independent arbitration process. Will the Minister indicate what he intends to do - assuming he can do something - to increase the number of personal insolvency practitioners in the country?
I welcome the arrangements that AIB have put in place. One of the great difficulties that all Members on both sides of the House have referenced in recent times has been the slowness of the banks in entering into permanent debt settlement arrangements with their customers. There have been tens of thousands of temporary or interim arrangements entered into but very few permanent arrangements. I always said when the legislation was going through the House that a sign of its success would be if it forced the banks and other financial institutions into finally addressing, on a permanent basis, the indebtedness of individuals who have no possibility of addressing their debt issues unless appropriate arrangements are put in place. The intention always was that the personal insolvency legislation would be used as a last resort, not a first resort. In that context, I welcome the fact that this step has been taken. I hope there are many individuals whose debt issues will be resolved through that process, without having to resort to the personal insolvency legislation.
As far as I am aware, there are hundreds of cases in the pipeline in the context of work that is being done by personal insolvency practitioners. As my initial reply indicated, more personal insolvency practitioners are expected to be licensed in the coming weeks.
One could also view this morning's news of AIB’s arrangement with the Irish Mortgage Holders' Association, an arrangement set outside of the parameters of the insolvency legislation, as pointing to a perceived failure of the legislation. The point is that the banks still have a veto in the whole process, while all the cards are stacked against those who find themselves in mortgage arrears and who are being strangled by personal debt. How will the Minister get more personal insolvency practitioners? He said he understands there are more in the licensing and application process. What is he doing to incentivise people to become practitioners? There are 120,000 mortgages in arrears of more than 90 days. These people will need to be able to avail of the insolvency service.
If the marketplace for personal insolvency practitioners is being controlled by a small number of people, the Minister knows there will be less competition and they will charge more. There is an obligation on the Minister to address this concern. What will he do to address it?
The Deputy always has this pessimistic and depressing view of life.
He is not like that at all.
This legislation started operating from 9 September and we now have more than 70 personal insolvency practitioners. We have been advised by the Insolvency Service of Ireland that it will be licensing additional numbers.
How many?
I will wait to see how many are licensed in that context.
The Deputy has been bleating around the House for the past several years, ignoring the fact that his party, when in government, created the disaster that is now affecting the lives of tens of thousands of people. While making his presentation, he was anxious that the banks would engage and resolve mortgage issues. The banks have been engaging for some time with more than 75,000 people who have temporary arrangements in place to facilitate their dealing with financial difficulties with mortgages. The banks, however, have been unnecessarily slow - I have been critical of them in this regard - in putting in place permanent arrangements to address people’s indebtedness in circumstances in which practical outcomes could be brought about.
I welcome the fact that the existence of the insolvency legislation has resulted in the development of a mechanism by AIB with the Irish Mortgage Holders' Organisation. I note the individual who heads up the organisation was extremely critical of everything to do with the insolvency legislation. The Deputy can be sure that AIB, or any other financial institution, would not be making a financial contribution of €150,000 to any organisation to independently represent those in financial difficulty whose difficulties need to be addressed by the bank unless they felt they would be put under pressure by the insolvency legislation. I welcome the fact that this has happened, and Deputy Niall Collins should see that as a positive outcome of the enactment of the insolvency legislation.
Child Care Reports
Thomas Pringle
Question:65. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Justice and Equality his views on the recently published report of the child care law reporting project in cases of children in direct provision; if he will consider allowing families in direct provision to live in the community in the interests of the children and families; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [46619/13]
This question arises from the publication of the Child Care Law Reporting Project, which examined 30 cases of child care before the courts. Three of those cases related to asylum seekers and direct provision. In one of the cases, the judge was not happy to allow the children to go back into the care of their mother in direct provision because of the circumstances in which they had to live. Will the Minister consider allowing families with children to move out of direct provision?
This question refers to the third volume of reports of proceedings taken under the Child Care Act 1991, which was recently published by the Child Care Law Reporting Project on its website www.childlawproject.ie. The aim of the project, which was established to examine and report on child care proceedings in the courts, is to provide information to the public and to policy makers on child care proceedings and to promote debate. The project aims to report on a sample of approximately 10% of cases taken under the Child Care Act 1991.
Three of the cases reported in the third volume related to emergency care orders sought for children in asylum accommodation centres which are operated under contract with the Reception and Integration Agency, RIA, of my Department. In all such cases, it is the Health Service Executive, HSE, which makes an application to the court for an emergency care order. The RIA is not a party to the proceedings. In two of the reported cases, the issue was the mental health of the mother; in the remaining case, the issue arose from the detention of the mother.
There is no evidence, either from this project or from the HSE, that there are a disproportionate number of cases under the Child Care Act 1991 involving asylum seekers in the direct provision system relative to the population generally.
Moreover, as with the mental health cases cited in the report, centre managers and RIA's child and family services unit are often in a position where they have a better oversight of a family’s situation than would be the case if the family were residing in the wider community. Even without knowing the full details of these cases, it is clear from the reports that the child protection policy and processes within RIA and the HSE worked properly. Regarding the suggestion that families living in direct provision be allowed to live in the community, it is important to note that of the 4,344 persons living in 34 direct provision centres around the country, approximately two thirds live in family units. The direct provision system remains a necessary feature of the State's asylum and immigration system and I have no plans to end it at this time.
Since I took up office in March, 2011 the number of persons being accommodated in direct provision has fallen by over 25%.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Nonetheless, I accept that the length of time spent in direct provision accommodation and the complexity of the asylum process are issues that need to be addressed. My resolve, therefore, is to continue to deal with the factors which lead to delays in the processing of cases in order that asylum seekers spend as little time as possible in that accommodation system. An amended Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill will be published next year which will substantially simplify and streamline the existing arrangements for asylum, subsidiary protection and leave to remain applications. This, along with new arrangements for the processing of subsidiary protection applications, should shorten the process and, thereby, the length of time which asylum seekers must spend in the direct provision system.
I thank the Minister for his response. Unfortunately, anybody who has worked with asylum seekers and who is familiar with the direct provision system, and all the NGOs involved, knows the direct provision has serious implications for people's mental health. For many years I was involved with a support group in Donegal Town and there were serious mental health issues for the residents in the direct provision hostels there as a direct result of the direct provision system. Earlier today there was a protest outside the gate against institutionalised racism that has taken place in this country and the direct provision system is a very stark example of institutionalised racism where people are not dealt with humanely or as human beings. In some cases children are born into direct provision and have lived under it all their lives. There is no doubt in my mind that direct provision is harmful to the mental health of the residents of the hostels, and many NGOs across this country agree. In the interests of children and their families we should urgently seek to change that.
I reject Deputy Pringle's allegation that direct provision is institutionalised racism. Direct provision provides accommodation to individuals, children and families who claim asylum in this country. Without direct provision they would have no accommodation. Direct provision provides better accommodation than is provided in many other EU member states. It provides not only accommodation but subsistence and additional benefits. Direct provision ensures people have accommodation that is necessary pending their asylum applications being dealt with. I would much prefer if these applications were dealt with much faster.
One of the issues is that we have a system whereby one first applies for asylum and if that fails one applies for leave to remain, and if that too fails one might, on humanitarian grounds, be asked to stay. The process is too long and a substantial proportion of those in direct provision are people who have been denied asylum, because it has been determined that they are not in need of asylum but are economic migrants who are challenging those conclusions in the courts by taking judicial review cases. There are more than 1,000 such cases. I want to introduce legislation which allows all these decisions to be made in the first instance without the current long delays, allows those who are genuinely entitled to asylum to stay in our country and be part of the overall community, and allows the State to remove from the country those economic migrants who seek to get around visa and immigration requirements.
We have been awaiting the legislation the Minister mentioned to streamline and speed up the process since this Government came to power and there is still no sign of it. Many people are in limbo because their cases have come to a standstill while we wait for this legislation. That is further compounding the difficulties they are experiencing. The direct provision system as I have experienced it over 12 years of working with asylum seekers is a system of open prisons.
It is not a system of which we should be proud, and we should not claim it is better than those of most other European countries. What we should do is to put in place a humane system that would allow people, after a reasonable period of time, to live and participate in the community. This would also encourage integration and go some way towards reducing racism in this country. We should deal with cases expeditiously, and if people must be sent home we should do so quickly rather than putting them through the torture they are going through.
I remind the Deputy that no individual seeking asylum is required to live in direct provision accommodation. Quite a number of individuals end up living outside that system, but it is there in circumstances in which asylum seekers have no resources of their own.
They get no social welfare.
The Deputy seems to suggest that every individual who comes to Ireland without a visa, in violation of our immigration laws, and who is an economic migrant should be provided automatically with housing, social welfare payments, free education for their children and free health care. If the Deputy wants between 50,000 and 100,000 economic migrants to descend into this State in circumstances in which the State must meet all these financial obligations, will he identify where the resources will come from to provide for that? What we have is a duty - which I believe is hugely important - to ensure that where an individual is genuinely in need of asylum or protection, the State provides that protection. We have a system that extends that to them and that deals with matters with reasonable speed and allows them to live in the wider community. However, we also have an obligation to everyone who lives in the State to ensure that our systems are not abused.
I agree with the Deputy that the production of the legislation has taken an undue length of time, but we will see it in 2014. The delay in producing it has been as a result of the obligations on the State to implement various other legislative measures which have had to be given priority in the Office of the Attorney General.