I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, to the House.
Adjournment Matters
Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. Tá mé an-sásta go bhfuil sé anseo tráthnóna leis an gceist fhíorthábhachtach seo a phlé. Tá mé thar a bheith díomách le Ceannaire an Tí ós rud é nach raibh sé sásta go mbeadh díospóireacht againn ar an ábhar fíorthromchúiseach seo; sé sin, éirí as an Coimisinéir Teanga, Seán Ó Cuirreáin. Aithníonn muid ar fad an ról tábhachtach a bhaineann le hOifig an Choimisinéara Teanga. Tá sé tábhachtach a aithint freisin gur ról ombudsman atá i gceist. Níl an coimisinéir mar an gcéanna le daoine eile atá ceaptha ag an Aire, ar nós ball nó cathaoirleach ar bhord Stáit. Tá an Coimisinéir Teanga ceaptha mar ombudsman faoi shéala an Uachtaráin, rud a thugann gradam agus neamhspleáchas faoi leith don ról sin. Sílim go n-aithnítear go forleathan go bhfuil jab fíormhaith déanta ag Seán Ó Cuirreáin sa ról sin le deich mbliana anuas. B'éigean dó an oifig a bhunú, mar go raibh reachtaíocht nua i gceist ag an am, le cearta a thabhairt do dhaoine atá ag iarraidh a gcuid gnóthaí a dhéanamh leis an Stát trí mheán na Gaeilge. Bíonn na scéimeanna teanga atá réitithe ag an Roinn Ealaíon, Oidhreachta agus Gaeltachta á bplé ag an oifig. Tá sórt jab maoirseachta le déanamh ag an gCoimisinéir Teanga maidir leis na scéimeanna sin a chur i bhfeidhm.
Tháinig sé aniar aduaidh orainn ar fad nuair a tháinig an coimisinéir os comhair an chomhchoiste an tseachtain seo caite. D'fhógair sé go bunúsach go bhfuil air éirí as a ról ar bhonn phrionsabal - sé sin, nach mbraitheann sé i ndáiríre gur féidir leis aon dul chun cinn breise a dhéanamh sa ról sin mar gheall ar an easpa tacaíochta ón Rialtas. Is náireach go deo an mhaise don Rialtas é go gcaithfidh ombudsman éirí as a phost ar an mbunús sin. Tá súil agam go bhfuil náire ar an Aire Stáit go bhfuil sé seo tarluithe fad is atá sé freagrach don Ghaeltacht agus don Ghaeilge. Tá cuid mhaith moltaí curtha chun cinn ag an gCoimisiéir Teanga, agus cuid mhaith cáineadh déanta aige ar na Ranna Stáit agus na heagrais Stáit nach bhfuil ag comhlíonadh a gcuid dualgais faoi Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla 2003.
Aírím ansin daingniú scéimeanna teanga. Tá an tAire Stáit ag feidhmiú mar Aire na Gaeltachta. Tá sé freagrach as an straitéis 20 bliain don Ghaeilge agus Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla a chur i bhfeidhm. Tá an Roinn fhreagrach as daingniú scéimeanna teanga. Tá 75% de na scéimeanna teanga imithe in éag. Céard atá ar bun i Roinn na Gaeltachta nach bhfuil sé in ann fiú na scéimeanna teanga a dhaingniú, rud a chinnteodh go bhfuil dul chun cinn á dhéanamh ó thaobh an bealach ina dtiocfadh lucht labhartha na Gaeilge i muinín seirbhísí Stáit a fháil trí mheán na Gaeilge? Tá cuid mhaith tuarascálacha leagtha ag an gCoimisinéir Teanga os comhair Thithe an Rialtais. Baineann cuid acu le Ranna éagsúla, ar nós na Roinne Coimirce Sóisialaí. Is beag atá déanta aige leis na moltaí atá curtha ag an gcoimisinéir faoinár mbráid a chur i bhfeidhm.
Dá n-éireodh an tOmbudsman do Leanaí, Emily Logan, as a post ar an gcaoi ar éirigh Seán Ó Cuirreáin as a phost, nó dá n-éireodh Emily O'Reilly as a post mar Ombudsman nuair a bhí sí sa ról sin, agus iad a rá nach raibh tacaíocht an Stáit á fháil acu, bheadh sé ina chogadh dearg. Is beag suim atá an Rialtas ag léiriú sa cheist seo. Chuir siad fógra amach chun "slán le Seán" a rá, agus tá sé i gceist acu fógra eile a chur sna páipéirí ag lorg duine éigin eile. Níl sé sin maith go leor. Céard atá i gceist ag an Roinn Ealaíon, Oidhreachta agus Gaeltachta a dhéanamh idir an dá linn, fad is atá comharba le ceapadh, leis na moltaí a rinne Seán Ó Cuirreáin nuair a bhí sé mar Choimisinéir Teanga a chur i bhfeidhm go praiticiúil ar an talamh? An dtabharfaidh siad na hacmhainní cuí agus an tacaíocht chuí? Go leor den am, ní cheist airgid atá i gceist anseo ach toil agus toil pholaitiúil. An bhfuil an tAire Stáit ag fáil tacaíochta óna chomhghleacaithe ar bord an Rialtais? Tá faitíos orainn go bhfuil sé ina aonar agus an coirnéal seo á troid aige. Tá imní orainn nach bhfuil le fáil aige ag bord an Rialtais ach an chluas bhodhar.
Tá lucht na Gaeilge agus pobal na Gaeilge ar buile leis an méid atá tarluithe le déanaí. Is dócha gurb é seo an rud is tromchúisí atá tarluithe le cuimhne na ndaoine ó thaobh saol na Gaeilge de. Ba cheart don Rialtas an t-imeacht seo a thógáil i bhfad níos dáiríre. Tá sé de dhualgas orthu gach gur féidir leo a dhéanamh le cinntiú go bhfaighidh an duine a thiocfaidh i gcomharbas ar Sheán Ó Cuirreáin an tacaíocht riachtanach. Sa chomhthéacs sin, cá bhfuil Acht na Gaeltachta? Cá bhfuil an t-athbhreithniú ar Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla a bhí le déanamh le dhá bhliain anuas? Tá moltaí faighte ag an Aire Stáit agus tá tuarascáil réitithe. Ní fhaca muid na moltaí sin go dtí seo. Tá súil agam nach bhfuil sé i gceist ag an Rialtas lagú a dhéanamh ar an Acht sin anois agus na moltaí sin á dtabhairt isteach gan aon choimisinéir sa ról. Tá mé ag súil le freagra an Aire Stáit.
Tá áthas orm deis a fháil sa Teach seo, mar a rinne mé sa Dáil inné, aitheantas a thabhairt don mhéid atá curtha i gcrích ag an Choimisinéir Teanga le linn a thréimhse in oifig. Níl amhras ar bith ach gur thug an Coimisinéir Teanga faoi bhunú a oifige nua le fís agus díograis. Tá an t-ardmheas atá air i measc phobal na Gaeilge agus na Gaeltachta le sonrú go soiléir. Chuir an Coimisinéir Teanga in iúl don Uachtarán ar 4 Nollaig 2013 go raibh sé beartaithe aige éirí as oifig ar 23 Feabhra 2014, tar éis deich mbliana a chaitheamh sa phost. Chuir an Coimisinéir a chinneadh in iúl dom go pearsanta an lá céanna, sula ndearna sé fógra poiblí ina leith le linn dó a bheith ag tabhairt tuairisce maidir le tuarascáil bhliantúil a oifige don bhliain 2012 ag cruinniú den Chomhchoiste Oireachtais ar Mhaoirseacht na Seirbhíse Poiblí agus Achainíocha.
Is trua liom gur thóg an Coimisinéir Teanga an cinneadh gan a théarma ceapacháin, a mhaireann go dtí Feabhra 2016, a chríochnú. Tá meas agam ar an gcinneadh atá déanta aige. Tá tús curtha leis an phróiseas chun Coimisinéir nua a cheapadh faoi réir alt 20(3) d'Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla 2003. Cuirfear moladh ina leith seo faoi bhráid an Rialtais in am trátha. Maidir leis an tsaincheist atá ardaithe ag an Seanadóir, ba mhaith liom a mheabhrú dó go bhfuil tiomantas an Rialtais maidir le cur chun cinn na Gaeilge sa saol poiblí agus i measc an phobail i gcoitinne le feiceáil go soiléir. Tá an tiomantas seo léirithe ní hamháin trí na gealltanais shonracha atá tugtha i gclár an Rialtais, ach freisin trí bhearta dearfacha agus caiteachas an Stáit laistigh de chreatlach polasaí na straitéise 20 bliain don Ghaeilge.
Ba mhaith liom díriú anois ar roinnt saincheisteanna a bhaineann leis an ábhar atá tógtha ag an Seanadóir. I dtús báire, measaim go bhfuil sé tábhachtach a aithint go bhfuil feabhas tagtha ar líon agus ar chaighdeán na seirbhísí Stáit i nGaeilge a chuireann comhlachtaí poiblí ar fáil ó tháinig Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla i bhfeidhm. Aithníodh ón tús nach mbeadh sé indéanta dul chun cinn suntasach a dhéanamh thar oíche agus gur próiseas forchéimnitheach a bheadh i gceist le feidhmiú an Achta, ag tógáil céimeanna de réir a chéile le comhoibriú agus le dea-thoil na bpáirtithe leasmhara éagsúla.
Is aidhm lárnach de chuid an Rialtais é úsáid na Gaeilge a éascú agus a chur chun cinn. Tá sé ina ghné thábhachtach den pholasaí sin go bhfuil baill fhoirne atá inniúil sa Ghaeilge ar fáil sa Státseirbhís chun freastal ar riachtanais an phobail i gcoitinne agus ar riachtanais shainiúla na Gaeltachta. Tá sé aitheanta ag an Rialtas go bhfuil gá le cur chuige spriocdhírithe a chinnteoidh go mbeidh foireann leis na scileanna riachtanacha Gaeilge ar fáil chun seirbhísí a sholáthar trí Ghaeilge. Sa chomhthéacs seo, thóg an Rialtas cinneadh i mí Dheireadh Fómhair an polasaí maidir le marcanna bónais do chomórtais earcaíochta agus ardaithe céime a chur ar ceal agus bearta a chur in áit a gcuirfidh leis an líon oifigeach sa Státseirbhís atá in ann feidhmiú go dátheangach. Mar chéad chéim sa phróiseas seo, tá sé i gceist comórtas d'oifigigh feidhmiúcháin a reáchtáil go luath agus beidh fo-phainéal de dhaoine atá inniúil sa Ghaeilge le bunú mar thoradh ar an gcomórtas seo. Cuirfear bearta sonracha i bhfeidhm fosta chun tacú le hoiliúint sa Státseirbhís. Creidim féin gur polasaí dearfach é seo a thabharfaidh deis do ranna Stáit a gcuid riachtanas maidir le seirbhísí i nGaeilge a aithint, seirbhísí don Ghaeltacht san áireamh. Tá mé dóchasach go rachaidh an t-athrú seo chun sochair don Ghaeilge sa Státchóras sa todhchaí.
Faoi Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla, tá an tAire Ealaíon, Oidhreachta agus Gaeltachta freagrach as scéimeanna teanga na gcomhlachtaí poiblí a dhaingniú. Is gné an-tábhachtach den Acht é daingniú na scéimeanna teanga chun go dtiocfaidh méadú ar líon agus ar chaighdeán na seirbhísí poiblí a chuirfear ar fáil trí Ghaeilge ar bhealach eagraithe agus tomhaiste thar thréimhse ama. Tá sé ríshoiléir ó alt 14(3) den Acht go maireann scéim teanga i bhfeidhm ar feadh trí bliana ón dáta a dhaingnítear í, nó go dtí go ndaingnítear scéim úr, cibé acu is moille. Tá beagnach 200 comhlacht poiblí clúdaithe faoi na scéimeanna éagsúla atá i bhfeidhm. Is dul chun cinn suntasach é sin. Ní miste a aithint go n-athraíonn feidhmeanna comhlachtaí poiblí agus go ndéantar cuid dóibh a scor ó am go chéile. Mar shampla, tá na boird oideachais agus oiliúna tagtha in áit na gcoistí gairmoideachais. Tá iarrtha agam ar gach ceann de na boird úra scéim teanga a ullmhú.
Faoi láthair, tá plé gníomhach ar siúl ag mo Roinn le 128 comhlacht poiblí maidir le scéimeanna teanga a aontú. Tá sé aitheanta cheana féin go bhfuil an próiseas chun scéimeanna teanga a aontú casta. Tá céimeanna éagsúla chun an córas a éascú á mbeartú, go háirithe i gcomhthéacs na leasuithe reachtúla atá beartaithe ar an Acht. Tá na dréacht-chinn den Bhille chun Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla a leasú ullmhaithe. Tá mé ag súil iad a chur faoi bhráid an Rialtais ag tús na hathbhliana. Chomh maith leis na leasuithe éagsúla atá beartaithe mar thoradh ar an athbhreithniú ar an Acht, beidh leasuithe i gceist fosta a bhaineann le cónascadh Oifig an Choimisinéara Teanga le hOifig an Ombudsman. Ba mhaith liom a threisiú nach gcuirfidh an cónascadh seo isteach ar neamhspleáchas an Choimisinéara Teanga i bhfeidhmiú a chuid cumhachtaí agus go bhfanfaidh an oifig sa Ghaeltacht.
Ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a chur in iúl arís don Choimisinéir Teanga as an méid a d'éirigh leis a chur i gcrích in achar deich mbliana. Ní inniu ná inné a aithníodh na constaicí agus na dúshláin a bhaineann le mionteanga, in ainneoin gurb í ár dteanga náisiúnta í, a chur chun cinn taobh le taobh le mórtheanga domhanda. Is ábhar misnigh dúinn ar fad é go maireann an Ghaeilge go fóill mar theanga bheo agus go bhfuil dea-thoil ann di i measc an phobail i gcoitinne. Níl aon amhras ach go ndearna an coimisinéir a chion féin chun feasacht maidir le cearta teanga agus dualgais teanga i leith na Gaeilge a ardú.
Tá súil agam go rachaidh an té a thiocfaidh i gcomharbacht ar an Choimisinéir Teanga i mbun oibre chomh díograiseach agus chomh fuinniúil céanna leis an chéad choimisinéir chun tógáil ar an dúshraith láidir atá leagtha síos aige.
Níl aon rud sa bhfreagra sin a thabharfadh aon mhisneach domsa go bhfuil an tAire Stáit ag tabhairt aghaidh, i ndáiríre, ar na ceisteanna crua a d'ardaigh an Coimisinéir Teanga agus is trua liom sin. Tá iarrtha agam ar an gCeannaire sa Teach seo go mbeadh díospóireacht iomlán againn ar an ábhar seo mar tá cuid mhaith Seanadóirí eile gur bhreá leo é a phlé leis an Aire Stáit. An mbeidh an tAire Stáit sásta teacht isteach sa Seanad sula mbeidh an Coimisinéir Teanga, Seán Ó Cuirreáin imithe as oifig le díospóireacht iomlán a bheith againn faoin ábhar seo?
An tosaíocht atá agamsa i láthair na huaire agus an dualgas agus an fhreagracht atá orm i láthair na huaire ná na sonraí a chur ar bun agus na céimeanna a ghlacadh chomh luath agus is féidir in Éirinn é chun comharba éifeachtach a cheapadh ar an choimisinéir atá i mbun oifige go dtí an 23 Feabhra. Tá na sonraí beagnach déanta agus tá súil agam go mbeidh muid ábalta a chur in iúl don phobal a bhfuil suim acu sa choimisinéir go mbeidh muid ag lorg tairiscintí gan mhoill. Tá súil agam go ndéanfar sin an tseachtain seo chugainn. An cuspóir atá agam ná go mbeidh comharba ar an choimisinéir atá ag éirí as oifig ainmnithe chomh luath agus is féidir.
Is féidir liom teacht isteach anseo agus díospóireacht ar an Athló a dhéanamh aon uair, ach sin ráite, níl a fhios agam an maith an rud -----
Díospóireacht iomlán.
Tá an Coimisinéir Teanga neamhspleách. Tá an gradam sin aige agus níl a fhios agam ar mhaith liom díospóireacht iomlán a bheith ar an Choimisinéir Teanga fad agus atá sé ag gníomhú.
Tá an reachtaíocht faoi chúram an Aire Stáit. Tá sé ag plé leis.
Tá mé cinnte go n-aontaíonn an Seanadóir liom gur an rud is práinní ná coimisinéir úr a thoghadh
Ba chóir gurb é an tAire Stáit a bheadh ag éirí as oifig, ní an coimisinéir.
Company Registration
I tabled this matter to highlight the need for a public register of the beneficial owners of companies. Arguments for such a register were set out very eloquently in The Irish Times last week in an article by Sorley McCaughey, the head of policy and advocacy with Christian Aid. The problem is that currently companies are able to use complex legal structures to separate their legal and beneficial ownership is such a way as to make it impossible for anybody to know who is the beneficial owner of the company, who is getting the money and who is pocketing the profits from the company.
The European Union is considering introducing measures in this regard. Discussions are ongoing in Brussels on the anti-money laundering directive and the Union is looking at the possibility of introducing a requirement across the Union for all member states to maintain public registers of the beneficial owners of companies. The reason I have tabled this debate is to ascertain from the Minister for Finance whether it is Ireland's intention to support that process and whether, in the interim, the Government will consider taking a step to introduce such a register ahead of any EU requirement.
The difficulty is that under the current system, money launderers, tax evaders and terrorist groups are able to rely on the secrecy that is provided by the complex network of trusts and shell companies to hide money and to hide the beneficiaries of profits. Christian Aid has pointed out the damage that this is doing to African economies. The African progress panel that was led by Kofi Annan estimated in its 2013 report that Africa loses twice as much in listed financial flows as it receives in international aid. Some estimates put capital flight at as high as €850 billion a year, depriving countries of vital capital and revenues. Much of this money flows out into shell or phantom companies. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, five mining contracts were awarded to anonymous companies in the British Virgin Islands, at a vastly under market rate and then sold on at market rate to major extractive companies. The estimated cost to the DRC was €1.35 billion, or twice the entire health and education budget of that country. The identities of those who own and benefited from the British Virgin Islands companies remain unknown to this day.
Public registers of the real and beneficial owners will address this problem. Not only will they provide a way to identify those who are profiting and hold them to account, but will also deter such practices. From Ireland's point of view, the introduction of such a requirement before it is enforced on us from Brussels would be another way for us to demonstrate our commitment as a country to promoting the highest levels of transparency in the areas of international finance and taxation and would seem to be a sensible position for us to adopt. The Department of Finance's recent publication on Ireland's international tax strategy talks at some length about our commitment to transparency and tackling tax evasion and justifiably points to some of the successes achieved in that regard under the European Presidency.
Taking this step now and introducing a public register of beneficial owners would be consistent with that policy and show we are serious about taking on the issue of tax transparency. The measure would only affect a small number of companies as the majority of companies in Ireland are small, family-owned companies with simple structures and where they are listed on the stock exchange, it is very clear who are their major shareholders. The issue I am concerned about affects approximately 1% or 2% of companies that use complicated structures to separate their legal and beneficial ownership. This is the type of practice we should not tolerate and should try to stop. France and Britain have already indicated that they support the introduction of a public register, regardless of whether it is introduced in the new EU money laundering directive. I urge that we do the same here.
I look forward to hearing the response from the Minister of State and hope he can indicate whether the Minister supports the proposal for this requirement at European level and whether Ireland will, like France and Britain, take the step of going ahead and doing it anyway, in the absence of any European requirement. We should do this as part of our overall commitment to showing we are serious about transparency in international finance and taxation.
I thank Senator Power for raising this matter in the Seanad.
The proposed 4th EU anti-money laundering directive, currently being negotiated at the Council of the European Union, will update and replace the 3rd EU anti-money laundering directive and reflect the views of member states on the operation of the existing system. While the Department of Finance plays a lead role, the proposed 4th anti-money laundering directive covers a number of policy areas which come under the responsibility of a number of different Departments. The issue of beneficial ownership of companies is a matter of interest to the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, which deals with company law matters.
The Minister for Finance advised me that he has consulted with the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, who has confirmed that there are a number of mechanisms already in company law through which beneficial ownership of shares can be identified. For example, any person with a financial interest in a private company may apply for a court order, under section 98 of the Companies Act 1990, to ascertain details of ownership of that company. Additionally, in regard to public companies there is a requirement, set out in Part IV, Chapter 2 of the Companies Act 1990, to disclose interest in shares when such interest reaches a specified percentage threshold.
Under section 14 of the Companies Act 1990, the Director of Corporate Enforcement may appoint inspectors to investigate and report on the membership of any company and otherwise with respect to the company for the purpose of determining the true persons who are or have been financially interested in the success or failure, real or apparent, of the company or able to control or materially influence the policy of the company.
At the European Council, Ireland has supported the Lithuanian Presidency approach in the proposed 4th anti-money laundering directive, which will require that member states ensure that the beneficial ownership information on companies incorporated within their territory is held in a specified location, for example, in one or more registries, or by means of other suitable mechanisms.
The issue of a public register for beneficial ownership has been discussed at ECOFIN and while there was support for beneficial information to be known and made available, there was majority support for the specific procedures and mechanisms around this to be left to individual member states. Negotiations are continuing on this proposed directive at the Council of the EU and due consideration will be given to this issue as part of the final agreement on the 4th anti-money laundering directive.
Ireland's International tax strategy, published on budget day, clearly sets out Ireland's policy objectives and commitments on a range of international tax issues, including countering tax fraud and evasion. This document includes Ireland's international tax charter which sets out the principles that guide Ireland's approach to these international tax issues. The charter includes commitments to both full exchange of tax information with our tax treaty partners and also commitment to automatic exchange of tax information in line with existing and emerging EU and OECD rules.
As the chairperson of the Revenue Commissioners stated, information, particularly third party information, is the lifeblood of tax administration. It is one of the most powerful tools in combating tax fraud and evasion. Automatic exchange of information between tax administrations is being heralded as the new global standard in the fight against tax fraud and evasion.
During Ireland's term as President of the Council of the European Union, work in the area of tax fraud and evasion was prioritised. Ireland brokered agreement by ECOFIN on comprehensive council conclusions on tackling aggressive tax planning, tax fraud and evasion. Progress was made on the negotiating mandate to align EU savings taxation agreements with non-EU jurisdictions, with the extended scope of the proposed revised savings tax directive. Ireland supports the global move towards automatic exchange of information and welcomes the work of EU to amend the directive on administrative co-operation in the field of taxation.
The issue of beneficial ownership is also linked to the country by country reporting issue. Ireland supports the G8 Lough Erne declaration on country by country reporting and ongoing work at OECD level on tax and development issues, including work on country by country reporting.
Ireland continues to support the anti-money laundering and anti-tax evasion agendas and promotes greater transparency across the financial services and tax areas. As outlined, Ireland supports the idea that beneficial ownership information should be known and due consideration will be given to the most appropriate mechanisms in light of our work in the various international fora and the final compromise agreed on the fourth anti-money laundering directive. Any legislative change which will reduce or eliminate corruption is clearly welcome. However, to be effective it must be properly targeted and proportional. Otherwise, innocent parties will have undue administrative burdens placed upon them and those who are breaking the law will remain unscathed.
I note the Minister of State indicated that Ireland supports the Lithuanian approach whereby each member state would have a register of this type of information. It is crucial that any such register be public. He also indicated that the chairperson of the Revenue Commissioners stated that information, especially third party information, is the lifeblood of tax administration. Access to such information should not be confined to the shareholders of a company or people with an interest in it who can apply for a court order to obtain details about a company. The register must be made publicly available in order that any person with an interest in a company, for example, an individual who has heard that issues may have arisen in respect of a company, is in a position to obtain information about the company. Access to such information should not be limited to public officials or shareholders of the company. Any member of the public should be able to obtain such information. This is the best approach and the basis on which Revenue operates in many other areas. The same approach should be adopted in this area.
The only argument the Minister of State provided for not establishing such a register is the administrative burden that would arise from such a register. As I stated, the issue I raise does not affect the vast majority of companies and is confined to companies which have highly complicated structures, most of which are large multinational companies. Given the burdens placed on companies, I do not accept the argument that providing information on beneficial owners would add an unnecessary burden. The benefits in terms of transparency would be much greater.
This is a serious issue because developing countries are frequently deprived of resources as a result of corruption in the awarding of contracts and so forth. In many cases, it is difficult to ascertain which company benefits from the contracts. In addition, issues such as money laundering and the financing of terrorist organisations also arise. The benefits of a register far outweigh the administrative burden it would create. I ask that the Minister for Finance review the position because the Lithuanian approach, which is supported by Ireland according to the Minister of State, does not go far enough. I hope Ireland will be a world leader in this matter and take action ahead of the European Union, as Britain and France have done, rather than being dragged into accepting it.
The Minister of State indicated that Ireland has argued that it should be up to individual countries to decide how to proceed in their own jurisdiction. We have seen the problems this approach creates in respect of other aspects of taxation where one ends up in a race to the bottom. Let us put this approach behind us and instead lead the way on transparency and fairness in taxation systems internationally.
I am inclined to agree with the Senator that transparency and openness are essential if we are to have an effective anti-evasion policy. The exchange of information between countries is also vital if we are to counteract tax evasion. This appears to be the approach being pursued. The Senator's comments and views will be conveyed to the Minister. I regret he is not present as he is otherwise engaged. I thank Senator Power again for raising the matter.
Direct Provision System
I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for taking this important Adjournment debate on direct provision for asylum seekers. As he will be aware, decisive action is required on the current structures of the direct provision system, which have been criticised at home and abroad. An independent appeals mechanism is needed, as is legislation to ensure a fairer system for those seeking asylum. I thank the students of Pobalscoil Inbhear Sceíne and their teacher, Lisa Sanford, for inviting me to the school to debate this issue about which they are very concerned. The students are involved in a project to highlight this issue.
People seeking asylum, some of whom will become citizens, are being treated appallingly. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, has the ability to change the direct provision system which he regarded as flawed when he was an Opposition spokesperson. After two and a half years in Government, he and the Labour Party, which was also critical of the system when in opposition, have not shown any urgency in addressing the issue.
The former Ombudsman, Emily O'Reilly, who is now the European Ombudsman, brought a number of reports to government on direct provision and raised concerns about asylum seekers. At the time, two thirds of asylum seekers had been in direct provision for approximately three years. Government policy, as enunciated by the current Minister and his predecessor, is that the period spent in direct provision should not exceed six months. The former Ombudsman raised the possibility that the circumstances in which people were living, for example, in very close quarters, were having negative mental and physical health effects and could constitute child abuse. The Council of Europe warned about the asylum process here in 2012 when it referred to negative consequences on mental health, family ties and integration prospects.
This returns me to the point that direct provision is the first port of call for many asylum seekers who will subsequently become citizens. It beggars belief that the Government has not taken any action on direct provision in the past three years despite the criticism levelled at the system by organisations at home and abroad. Ultimate responsibility lies with the Minister for Justice and Equality. I am disappointed he is not present. I could cite some of the criticism he made of the direct provision system while an Opposition Deputy. As the person with power to change the system, I ask him to explain the reasons he has not tackled the issue. I hope he will listen to the campaign of the students of Pobalscoil Inbhear Sceíne and others who are trying to highlight this issue.
Asylum seekers do not have a vote and asking politicians, notably those in government who were critical of the direct provision system while in Opposition, to tackle the issue does not seem to be bearing fruit.
Will the Minister read the reply he has from the Minister for Justice and Equality to ascertain whether we can make progress on this important issue?
I am responding on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, who is in Templemore to announce the new recruitment drive for the Garda.
That announcement has been made a few times. Is it official this time?
I am sure the Senator will welcome the move.
The Minister has responded this year to more than 50 parliamentary questions in the Dáil on direct provision and has addressed this subject in this House several times, most extensively in response to a Private Members' motion on 23 October 2013. Much of what I have to say, therefore, has been said previously. In addition, legal challenges to the direct provision system are likely to litigated in the High Court next year.
Currently 4,381 persons reside in 34 accommodation centres managed under contract to the Reception and Integration Agency, RIA, of the Department of Justice and Equality. At the end of 2009, 6,494 were persons residing in 54 centres. The number of centres and the number of persons residing in them have decreased by a third in the space of three years. The Minister is not saying this issue will disappear over time but it is being managed and controlled. The efforts of the Minister and his Department will continue to further reduce the numbers of persons in direct provision. He hopes that the new arrangements he recently introduced to deal with outstanding subsidiary protection applications will contribute to this. He equally hopes that the passage of an amended immigration and residence Bill next year and the introduction of a single procedure will make for a more efficient and effective procedure.
The Minister is aware of the proposals of the Irish Refugee Council, IRC, on an alternative reception system for people seeking international protection. The RIA will shortly meet IRC representatives at their request to enable them to elaborate on their proposals. It is notable that the document states that the proposals "are addressed on the basis that Ireland is now receiving less than 1,000 new asylum claims a year". The reality is asylum trends can fluctuate and we cannot assume that this will remain the case. Moreover changes to the asylum system, including reception conditions, can and do impact on the number of asylum claims that are made and that this also needs to be borne in mind. It would be wrong therefore to ignore this "pull factor". While the State has an important obligation to provide refuge for those in genuine need of protection and asylum and it is crucial that we comply with our international obligations in this regard, it is also appropriate to acknowledge that a significant number of those who have during the years sought asylum here have been economic migrants evading our immigration and visa requirements whose personal narratives have ultimately proved to be both untrue and unreliable. The State at this time cannot afford to provide supports and accommodation for individuals who so behave.
I would also like to reiterate a number of points about the direct provision system and how it has operated. It is important to note that not once has an asylum seeker arriving in this State been left homeless. That cannot be said for several other EU states. The Minister has said on several occasions that while the direct provision system is not ideal, it facilitates the State in providing a roof over the heads of those seeking asylum or seeking to be allowed on humanitarian grounds to stay in the State. It allows the State to do this in a manner that facilitates resources being used economically in circumstances where it is under financial difficulty.
If the State was to permit all asylum seekers to avail of full social welfare supports, including rent supplement, the immediate impact would be that every asylum seeker, including those not currently in accommodation provided by the RIA, would avail of this financial support. Every asylum seeker does not live in direct provision accommodation, as they are not compelled to do so. Accommodation is provided for those who cannot provide accommodation for themselves and do not have friends, family or others in the State who are willing to provide accommodation for them. Some asylum seekers live with friends or family or provide from their own resources for their accommodation needs.
The accommodation system cannot be in place solely in its own context. It is inextricably linked with the surrounding international protection process. An amended immigration, residence and protection Bill will be published next year, the purpose of which will be to substantially simplify and streamline the existing arrangements for asylum, subsidiary protection and leave to remain applications by making provision for the establishment of a single application procedure in order that applicants can be provided with a final decision on all aspects of their protection application in a more straightforward and timely fashion.
The direct provision system remains an important element of the State's asylum and immigration system and the Minister has no plans to end it at this time. The Minister accepts, however, that the time spent in direct provision accommodation and the complexity of the asylum process are issues that need to be addressed. His resolve, therefore, is to deal with the factors that lead to delays in the processing of cases in order that asylum seekers spend as little time as is necessary in the accommodation system.
I am disappointed with the reply and, in particular, the comment that the Minister has no plans to end this system at this time. When he was in opposition, he had plans and energy and what he was not going to do was not wroth mentioning, yet when he is in a position to make a change he is not willing or able to make it.
I note a hint of sarcasm in the Minister of State's comment that the Minister has replied to 50 parliamentary questions and addressed the House on the direct provision issue. It is amazing, however, that despite all the replies and debates on the issue that his new proposals to amend the reception system and the IRC's alternative proposals will only be discussed by the RIA and the IRC in 2014. It is amazing that a man who has answered a question about this issue 50 times and has participated in a debate in this House has not instructed the RIA to meet the IRC prior to now.
I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House. I hope some more time in opposition might help the Minister for Justice and Equality to regain his enthusiasm. He might be able to find the notes he used previously to outline how he would change the direct provision system when he got into power.
There has been an improvement in direct provision in recent years and I have outlined the figures relating to the reduction in the number of applications and centres. Deputy Shatter is one of the most reforming Ministers we have had in this Department for many generations. Between legislation and everything else, he will go down in history as one of the most reforming, imaginative and creative Ministers.
The Seanad adjourned at 8 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Monday, 16 December 2013.