merrion street

The first thing to be said about yesterday’s report in the Irish Times is it shows that the inspection regime put in place by the Reception and Integration Agency (RIA) of the Department of Justice and Equality is working. Finding things which are wrong and having them fixed is the purpose of a good inspection regime. This is not in any way to seek to minimise the contents of the reports which of course are treated with the utmost seriousness by the staff of my department who have the difficult job of operating the direct provision system.

The Reception and Integration Agency (RIA) of my Department is responsible for the accommodation of, currently, 4,400 asylum seekers in 34 Centres across 17 counties. When this Government took up office in March 2011, that number was 5,900 – a reduction of 25% over the past two and a half years. RIA centres are occupied on a 24/7 basis. The Irish Times report was based on all inspection reports for seven specified centres over the course of twelve months, and involved the release of 95 documents under FOI. Whilst, naturally, the worst elements of those reports were highlighted in fact most inspection reports are positive. Again this is not to minimise the contents but to say that they do not tell the full story by any means.

Contractors have a duty to comply with the terms of contracts they enter into with RIA. Some of the issues raised in these reports arise as a result of some residents unintentionally blocking fire exits, leaving children unattended, using rice cookers etc. This is not to blame residents – far from it - but to acknowledge that this is an ongoing challenge for staff working in the centres.

All 34 asylum accommodation centres in the Direct Provision system are subject to a minimum of three unannounced inspections a year – one by an independent company QTS under contract to RIA and two by RIA officials.

Two ’30 day’ notices – in which the contractor was told that the contract would be ended if problems were not rectified – issued in serious cases. In both cases problems were remedied within 48 hours requiring the lifting of the 30 day notice.

Centres are also subject to inspection by Fire Officers and , in relation to food issues, to unannounced inspections by Environmental Health Officers.

Each centre, as part of their contractual obligations, must be annually inspected by a qualified and competent person with professional indemnity who must issue a Certificate of Compliance with fire safety.

In relation to overcrowding, all RIA centres are subject to the requirements of the Housing Acts 1996-2002. Where a family increases in size such that these requirements are no longer met, alternative suitable accommodation is offered by RIA. However, some families decline this offer and may decide to stay where they are until more spacious accommodation within their existing centre becomes available.

RIA has a robust Child Protection system. The instances of children being left alone were dealt with immediately and education of parents and guardians as to their responsibilities is a key feature of any follow up. In all cases, the primary carers for children are their parents.

There was mention in the article of suicides being ‘covered up’. This is simply untrue. In the 14 years of RIA’s existence only one person – a newly arrived asylum seeker – can with certainty be said to have committed suicide and that happened while he was being detained in hospital.

Inspection templates have been changed and new training for staff took place earlier this year. All completed inspections carried out from 1 October, 2013 will be published on RIA’s website. ‘Completed’ means the inclusion of responses by contractors to the report’s findings.

RIA believes that transparency is the key to maintaining standards. Residents have been assured time and again that complaints under the RIA ‘House Rules’ are legitimate and will not adversely affect their protection claims nor lead to unwanted transfers. Any suggestions to the contrary are not true and, unfortunately, may have the effect of dissuading residents from using the complaints mechanism in the way intended.

The Direct Provision system seeks to ensure that the accommodation and ancillary services provided by the State meet the requirements of asylum seekers while their applications for international protection are being processed. It is essentially a cashless system which provides them with full board accommodation free of utility or other costs. While accommodation services are provided by RIA, other State supports are provided by the appropriate Government Department or agency, i.e., health services are provided through the HSE, social welfare supports through the Department of Social Protection and Education through the Department of Education & Skills and so on.

Except in exceptional circumstances, no asylum seeker is obliged to live in RIA accommodation. Some choose to live on their own resources or with friends or family and indeed down through the years, many asylum seekers have not availed of direct provision facilities. The system is intended for those who arrive in the State seeking international protection and who are otherwise destitute.

While the direct provision system is not ideal, it facilitates the State in providing a roof over the head of those seeking asylum or seeking other grounds to be allowed, on humanitarian grounds, to stay in the State - and to do so in a manner that facilitates resources being used economically in circumstances where the State is under great financial difficulty. Over 51,000 people have been accommodated in the direct provision system since early 2000. Since then, no asylum seeker has been left homeless by a failure of the State to provide basic shelter and to meet basic needs.

It is to be expected that asylum seekers anywhere, if given a choice, would prefer to have independent accommodation, a right to welfare and work and so on, instead of being restricted to the system of direct provision to meet their needs. To avoid misunderstanding, it should be noted that all EU Member States operate systems for dealing with asylum seekers which, in one form or another, greatly restrict their access to welfare, work or independent housing. The system in this State is at least on a par and often significantly better than that in operation in many other Member States. I freely admit that the system has its faults but it is misleading to characterise our treatment of asylum seekers as being akin to that meted out to past residents of industrial schools or Magdalene Laundries.

The issue of using private contractors is not the point. Standards must be maintained irrespective of whether the public or private sector is involved. Using private contractors to accommodate asylum seekers is a sensible thing to do. It allows RIA to adapt quickly when the number seeking accommodation waxes or wanes. At the start of 2009, RIA had 60 centres with 7,002 residents: today it has 34 centres with 4,400 residents. RIA has instituted tough cost saving measures in recent years – cutting capacities and per diem rates – without affecting the services provided to residents. Indeed, it is in the commercial interests of providers that as good a service as possible is provided to residents.