To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality, Alan Shatter T.D., why there is no legislative basis for Direct Provision as operated by the Reception and Integration Agency (RIA) under the aegis of the Department of Justice and Equality.
- Senator Jillian Van Turnhout
Response by Mr. James Reilly, T.D. on behalf of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Defence, Mr. Alan Shatter T.D.I am responding on this subject today on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Mr. Alan Shatter, T.D.
The question asked by the Senator in her motion presupposes that there must be a specific legislative underpinning for the provision of State services to persons who otherwise would not be entitled to such services. Legislating for legislation’s sake is unwise. If there is a case being made for a change in how asylum seekers are accommodated – and this is a view which the Senator is expressing and has expressed on a number of occasions – then that is an issue of policy in the first instance, rather than legislation.
The Direct Provision system ensures the delivery of services alongside legislative provisions which would otherwise specifically prohibit asylum seekers from being provided with the basic necessities of life. For example, asylum seekers cannot work under section 9 (4) (b) of the Refugee Act, 1996. They cannot access Rent Allowance under section 13 of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2003. They are not entitled to a range of benefits, including Child Benefit, as they are deemed to be not habitually resident under section 246(7) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, 2005.
As an administrative system, direct provision is unique in this State but, as a result of it, no asylum seeker has ever been left homeless. Clearly it is not a system without its faults but in the 13 years of its existence over 51 thousand asylum seekers have been accommodated under this system. Asylum seekers receive nourishment on a par with, and in some cases superior to, that available to the general population. Asylum seekers receive a health service on the same basis as Irish citizens and it is, in many cases, far superior to what is available in their countries of origin. Children of asylum seekers are provided with primary and secondary education in the local community on the same basis as the children of Irish citizens. The system of direct provision is not unique to Ireland; many other countries operate similar systems for meeting the reception needs of asylum seekers and all face challenges which are broadly similar to the issues we face here.
There are no cheaper alternatives to the direct provision system. In fact, if we were operating a system which facilitated asylum seekers in living independent lives in individual housing with social welfare support and payments, the cost to the exchequer would be double what is currently paid under the direct provision system, even discounting the additional 'pull factor' this would entail. This was a key finding in the Value for Money Report in 2010.
Allowing asylum seekers access to the full array of welfare and housing benefits would run a real risk of a large upsurge in economic migrants masquerading as asylum seekers coming here in the expectation of accessing these services. Furthermore, in respect of any major change of policy we have to take account of the common travel area between Ireland and the UK which facilitates free movement between the jurisdictions.
It must be borne in mind that the persons residing in the Direct Provision are here for a specific reason - to claim international protection from this State. That entitlement is protected by international obligations which the State has entered into and by a comprehensive national and EU legal framework and accompanying administrative processes which govern the processing of protection applications.
The Minister acknowledges that there is an issue with the length of time applicants spend in Direct Provision. While not suggesting that applicants are not entitled to the protection of the courts and to due process, a consequence of the frequent recourse to the courts to challenge decisions under these legislative processes is to extend the length of time spent in Direct Provision accommodation. This underlying problem does not arise from a lack of legislation; quite the opposite.
There are many reasons why applicants spend lengthy periods in Direct Provision; I have already referred to legal challenges being one of these. Undoubtedly another significant issue is the cumbersome and multi-layered legal protection process in the State. There is a clear imperative to change and radically reform that process and the Minister is committed to introducing that reform.
As the Minister has already stated, he intends to re-publish a revised Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill, which will substantially simplify and streamline the existing arrangements for asylum, subsidiary protection and leave to remain applications. It will do this by making provision for the establishment of a single application procedure, so that applicants can be provided with a final decision on all aspects of their protection application in a more straight forward and timely fashion, thus reducing the length of time applicants spend in the Direct Provision system.
Pending the enactment and commencement of the new legislation and with a view to improving processing, the Minister informs me that he is proposing to introduce new arrangements for the processing of subsidiary protection applications in light of recent judgments in the Superior Courts. His Department, in consultation with the Attorney General's Office, is developing a new legislative and administrative framework for the processing of current and future subsidiary protection applications. This work is being given high priority and applicants will be advised of the new arrangements as soon as possible.
In the meantime the system is overseen by the Reception and Integration Agency - RIA – of the Minister’s Department. RIA is subject to the same Civil Service obligations of fairness of implementation of policy as would any area of Government implementing a scheme – either statutory or non-statutory.
Finally, it is worth noting that since the Minister took up office the number of persons being accommodated in Direct Provision has fallen significantly by approximately 1,000 or 25% in the period in question.