Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 5 November 2013
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]
Amharc ar fhreagraThis 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.
