The Reception and Integration agency of the Department of Justice and Equality is responsible for the accommodation of asylum seekers in accordance with the Government policy of direct provision. RIA is required to review its accommodation portfolio on an ongoing basis to reflect current and projected demand for bed spaces. There has in recent years been a consistent downward trend in demand for RIA accommodation. This requires RIA to either end contracts when they come up for renewal or to seek a reduction in capacity. This enables RIA to remain within budget and ensures that the State is not paying for unnecessary services at a time of critical financial pressure.
Following the receipt of a number of representations in respect of the closure of the Lisbrook accommodation centre in Galway, I indicated that a review of that decision would take place having regard, inter alia, to the impact on school children of such a closure, as well as the broader financial restrictions within which RIA must operate. Following this review, I have decided that the decision of RIA should stand. The fundamental problem with keeping Lisbrook open to the end of the school year in July, 2013 is cost. Effectively, RIA would be buying beds over a 7 month period in 2013 which it does not need. The cost would be over €2 million and I believe that those resources could be put to better use.
Plainly, closing down family centres during the non-school summer months is a more desirable option. But the fact is that RIA contract end dates for all its centres are deliberately staggered throughout the year to take account of the ebb and flow of demand for asylum seeker accommodation. RIA now has spare capacity of 14.8% in its overall portfolio and this must be reduced towards the 10% level recommended in the 2010 Value for Money (VFM) Report on RIA accommodation. Arising from the closure of Lisbrook and other centres this year, as well as reductions in capacity elsewhere, RIA will - based on current occupancy levels - be within the 10% VFM guideline at the end of this year.
RIA makes every effort to keep family centres open, preferring instead to reduce contracted capacities. But in some cases the economies of scale are such that closure is the only option that remains. RIA engaged in negotiations with its contractors over the course of this year but, as in the case of Lisbrook, some of these negotiations did not resolve themselves before the summer 'window'. Moreover, having all RIA contracts for family centres end only in July and August each year would make the logistics of running the RIA accommodation system very difficult indeed, leaving aside the problem of having to bear the costs of unnecessary beds in the meantime.
That said, I am very conscious of the disruption that will be caused by the closure of this centre. I have instructed RIA to ensure that families of all those children attending secondary school will transfer to another family centre in Galway – the Eglington in Salthill – in order that their education should not be interrupted. These children will continue to attend the same secondary schools. Further, for those families who will be required to transfer to other centres, RIA staff will ensure that it re-locates school-going children in alternative centres where they could access schools nearby.
RIA will work with accommodation centre management teams and State service providers locally at each of its accommodation centres to link families and individuals to services as quickly as possible, including local schools, hospitals, Public Health Nurse, GP services, Community Welfare and other services. This process is undertaken in respect of any closure of a centre or where residents move from one centre to another. In relation to the suggestion that asylum seekers be provided access to full social welfare benefits, this issue was addressed in a Value for Money report on the direct provision system published in 2010 which found that in comparison with a number of options including social welfare, the policy of direct provision was considered to be the best choice for a number of reasons. It is less costly, it is less likely to act as an incentive to new asylum seekers, and it allows the State to manage the challenge of asylum seekers in a way that reduces pressure on local services.
Expanding full social welfare benefits to asylum seekers would be contrary to long standing Government policy and is not being contemplated. Such a policy would have consequences beyond the asylum system, including in relation to the Habitual Residency Condition introduced by the Minister for Social Protection in 2004 which prohibits certain social welfare payments - child benefit or one parent family payment, for example - to a number of non-qualifying groups including asylum seekers.
