Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 17 October 2018
10. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the steps he plans to take to end the direct provision system; and his views on recent reports regarding the number of children in the direct provision system. [42443/18]
View answerWhat plans does the Minister have to end the direct provision system? It is more than three years since the McMahon report was published, which has been discussed at length in the House. Judgment was passed in the court case on the right to work, which is extremely restricted and very difficult for people in direct provision to access. I ask the Minister to comment on the latest figures on the number of children in direct provision and how that affects them.
As the Deputy may be aware, direct provision involves a range of State services, including accommodation, food, health and education directly provided to international protection applicants through the relevant Departments and agencies. It is a whole-of-Government support system for those seeking international protection in Ireland. However, I will assume that the Deputy is referring primarily to the accommodation centres provided by the Reception and Integration Agency of my Department.
Notwithstanding the criticisms levelled at the system, particularly in terms of length of stay, it has proven effective in ensuring that those who come to our country seeking international protection receive food and shelter and have immediate access to these and other State services and supports. More than 60,000 people, including many children, have been provided with shelter since its inception. It is not possible to predict how many people seeking international protection will arrive in any given year. It can vary substantially from year to year. However, the system generally, with some recent small exceptions, ensures that all applicants, including children, are offered immediate shelter, full-board accommodation and a range of services such as health and education while their applications are being processed.
I can assure the Deputy that I will give serious consideration to any alternative system that can provide immediate shelter and access to State services in the instance of the spontaneous arrival of families and children with unestablished needs who unexpectedly turn up in Ireland seeking protection. To date, no alternative has been put forward, but I will continue to keep an open mind on the matter.
The Deputy has asked about the number of children in care who are being looked after or living in direct provision accommodation. At the end of August, there was a total of 1,591 children – 822 males and 769 females - in direct provision accommodation, all of whom reside with their parents or guardians. Unaccompanied minors are the responsibility of Tusla.
As the Deputy is aware, on 30 June this year, the Minister, Deputy Charles Flanagan, signed the European Communities (Reception Conditions) Regulations to transpose the directive into national law. The directive includes important provisions in regard to rights to gain access to health and education services, as well as in regard to children's rights and material reception conditions for applicants which include housing, food, clothing and a daily expense allowance which, as we know, has gone up. This represents a major change in managing the reception conditions for those seeking international protection in Ireland. I am pleased that the standards that must be reached in how we treat those seeking international protection are now underpinned by law. Any replacement proposed for direct provision would have to meet all of these standards. Significant improvements to the living conditions of applicants have been made in recent years. I can go through them on a later date or pass them on to the Deputy.
The McMahon tribunal recommendations are being implemented, virtually in full.
It is interesting that the Minister of State wants to hear views on alternative systems. I can think of one. Offering immediately shelter, food and safety to children and their parents who come here is a challenge, but leaving them in direct provision accommodation for up to seven years is absolutely obscene. There is an alternative to the system, namely, not having meeting of the needs of the homeless compete with meeting of the needs of those who come here seeking asylum. The only reason they compete is the housing crisis, which involves a separate but not unrelated discussion. The problem is that the parents of the children, many of whom have been in direct provision accommodation for up to seven years, are not given access to work. We have seen the meat industry open its doors to allow new workers to come into the country. There is an appeal from the care industry and the hospitality sector to do likewise. Despite this, someone cannot apply for work if he or she has been here for less than nine months. If someone's case is being appealed, he or she cannot apply. This relates to a significant cohort of parents.
Let me return to the circumstances of the children. Let us recall how touched the entire country was by the story of the young woman who went on "Morning Ireland" having lived in a hotel for two years. Imagine how touched the entire country would be if we were to examine how children fared in direct provision accommodation for up to seven years and the conditions in which they lived. The Minister of State's description sounds nice, but the Refugee Council of Ireland has a different type of report, of which I am sure he is aware.
Again, the Deputy has not brought forward any suggestion on what we could do to replace the direct provision system.
The right to work.
She has not done that; rather, she has skittered around it. She uses emotion very cleverly. We are very careful in looking after people who come here. They receive help and support on the night. They are given a bed, board, food, heat and so forth. Education is also provided. No applicant is obliged to accept the offer of accommodation and related services and many do not. If a person has sufficient means, including if he or she has been working for a reasonable amount of time, he or she is free to source and provide his or her own accommodation if he or she has the resources to do so, but not everybody is in the position described by the Deputy. People can leave any time they wish. However, there is the offer. If someone arrives in Dublin Airport this evening and wants asylum, he or she will have a bed, food, heat and safety tonight. He or she will also have access to education for his or her children. We try to move people through the system as quickly as possible. As the Deputy well knows, we have changed the law since 2015 to speed up the decision-making process. The length of stay has changed. A total of 2,150 people have been in the system for less than one year. We are moving as hard as we can to make decisions as quickly as possible to help people to get on with their lives. That is what we all want to see happen.
I repeat what I said before: for every hungry belly, there is a pair of hands and a brain, which is quite obvious. The limiting of the right to work by the State for people in the direct provision system is quite shocking. Most of the parents want to work to be able to independently provide their children with accommodation that does not include a communal bathroom shared with grown men and women. It means entire families would not have to share rooms with other families and that different genders would not have to share the same room. Children are often exposed to violence and sexual behaviour. The long stay in direct provision accommodation and the confined space have led to an increase in mental health problems and depression among the children. Therefore, there are two concerns. The first relates to how the adults are deprived of the right to rear their families with dignity and the ability and freedom to work and rent their own homes. The deprivation of the adults is leading to a litany of problems. I do not have time to go through all of them, but the recent report by the Refugee Council of Ireland is shocking. Unless the Minister of State does not believe it, he has to take the report seriously.
Opting in to the directive and allowing people who have been here for nine months to work have been widely welcomed across the spectrum. The arrangements are not restrictive. There are only a few areas in which people cannot work, including the Garda and the Army.
If their cases are being appealed, they cannot work.
There are people who are delighted to have this opportunity. They are being supported to go out to work after the period laid down. We will examine the matter again and might change the arrangement which was welcomed widely at the time by everybody concerned, although the Deputy might not have done so. The Office of the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman for Children have had their remits extended to cover accommodation and related services provided for those in the international protection process who are living in accommodation centres for which we are developing standards and which will be inspected independently. Therefore, we are doing a huge amount of work. It would be nice now and again if the Deputy actually recognised the great efforts being made to help people who are vulnerable and come here to seek help and protection which we give them.
The greatest effort of all is made by voluntary organisations.
We have a very strong record internationally, but it does not suit the Deputy to hear it as whe wants to work on misery and exaggerate it. We want to help people. We want to support and help them to make their homes in Ireland if granted the required status.
I want things to change. It is three years since publication of the McMahon report.
