Speech by Minister of State Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, T.D. Minister of State for New Communities, Culture and Equality

12 June, 2015

Consideration by Dáil of report of Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions on the extension of the remit of the Ombudsman to cover all aspects and bodies associated with the Direct Provision system and the extension of the remit of Freedom of Information to cover all aspects and bodies associated with the system of Direct Provision including all the suppliers of goods and services, whether from the Private or Public Sectors

Check against Delivery

 

A Cheann Comhairle,

I am speaking today on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Ms. Frances Fitzgerald, T.D. who is unable to attend here today.

I want firstly to say that I welcome this report by the Joint Committee. Although important in itself, this will aid in the decision process to be engaged in by Government in the context of recommendations to be made in the forthcoming report of independent Working Group on improvements to the protection process, including Direct Provision and supports for asylum seekers.

I thank members of the Joint Committee for their diligence in going about their business in relation to this topic, in respect of which, as this House knows, I have had a long standing interest. Quite properly, members made on-the-ground visits to four Direct Provision centres in Galway, Limerick, Meath and Dublin, and these were a cross section of the 34 asylum accommodation centres across the State in which 4,500 persons currently reside. Since my appointment as Minister of State last year, I too have visited centres to see for myself the conditions in which these residents live. The dry facts set out in official documents and reports cannot properly convey the day to day realities which they face - which mostly revolves around waiting and hoping. Nonetheless, I am glad the report also acknowledges that many owners, management and staff seek to alleviate the consequences of the direct provision system.

I also appreciate that the Committee held two hearings on this matter – the first on 22 October, 2014 involving asylum seekers and NGO’s and the second on 1 April of this year before which I and two officials from the Department of Justice and Equality attended. At my appearance on 1 April, I made my own views on this subject clear to the Committee.

In its report, the Committee focuses on recommendations which fall within its remit but also makes recommendations on various aspects of the Direct Provision system for consideration by other relevant sectoral Oireachtas Committees. I think this unusual approach is inevitable given the quite broad nature of the State’s responsibilities in the area of international protection.

　

At this point, I should say that whilst I and my colleague, Minister Fitzgerald, fully support the independent Working Group under the chairmanship of former High Court Judge, Dr. Bryan McMahon, we do not know what recommendations its pending report will make and nor have we sought to influence its conclusions. Nonetheless, I think it’s reasonable to assume that the report will address many of the issues raised in the Committee’s report. I understand that the report of the Working Group will amalgamate reports from three smaller, more focussed, sub-groups dealing with specific themes – namely conditions in centres; supports for asylum seekers; and improving the processing of protection claims.

Whilst not wishing to anticipate the Working Group report, I want to address those four recommendations in its report which the Joint Committee believe is within its remit; namely, a ‘pre-Ombudsman’ independent complaints system for residents under the direct provision centre’s House Rules; an extended legal remit for the Ombudsman and Children Ombudsman to include the Direct Provision system as well as the administration of law relating to immigration and naturalisation; responsibility for centre inspections to be given to an independent body such as HIQA; and the extension of the FOI Acts to cover the direct provision system as well as the administration of the law relating to immigration and naturalisation.

Dealing with the ‘pre-Ombudsman’ independent complaints mechanism first, this issue came to the fore in the High Court judgement in November, 2014 in the CA and TA case which, although finding that the direct provision system did not breach human rights, did find that certain aspects of the House Rules dealing with guests, signing in and the lack of an independent appeals mechanism were unlawful. Although the issue was discussed at the Working Group my understanding is that it will not form part of its recommendations. Nonetheless, in the meantime revised House Rules have issued which addresses the Court’s findings, including the option of a final appeal to an independent complaints officer. I should record here that the CA and TA judgment is under appeal.

This brings me to the second recommendation concerning the extension of the legal remit for the Ombudsman and Children Ombudsman to include the Direct Provision system as well as the administration of law relating to immigration and naturalisation. As things stand, this is a matter of legislation which falls within the remit of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. Section 5 (1) (e) of the Ombudsman Act, 1980 and section 11(1) (e) of the Ombudsman for Children's Act, 2002 provide that either Ombudsman shall not investigate any action taken by or on behalf of a person in the administration of the law relating to, inter alia, asylum. This has been interpreted to include the direct provision system. I note that the view of the current Ombudsman, Dr. Niall Muldoon, as expressed to the Joint Committee on 11 March, 2015, is that other than decisions on immigration status, that everything else, including issues regarding accommodation, administration processes and internal complaints processes are in remit.

The first point to be made on this recommendation is that at all events, it is not intended that either Ombudsman would serve as a first instance appellant authority in relation to day to day administrative complaints mechanisms. It is a requirement that a person who wishes to appeal to the Ombudsman must first try to solve the problem with the public body concerned using a formal local appeals mechanism. I have already pointed out the changes in the House Rules in relation to a final independent complaints mechanism, even if it falls short of the Ombudsman.

Secondly, the current administrative processes which lead to decisions on an asylum claim are in fact substantially set out in legislation, First instance protection decisions are carried out by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and are subject to appeals before the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Both offices are legally independent of the Minister for Justice and Equality and their decisions can be judicially reviewed by the courts. The Government would have to carefully consider how the addition of another independent body into this process would impact on an already complicated system. Pending consideration by the Government of the report of the independent Working Party, there are no plans to change those legislative provisions to give either Office the power to investigate asylum related matters.

In this regard, I should further point out that in relation to processing, earlier this year Minister Fitzgerald published the General Scheme of the International Protection Bill, the aim of which is to reduce waiting times for asylum applicants. The key provision of the Bill is to replace the existing multi-layered protection determination system with a single procedure, the aim of which is to enable timely and efficient protection decisions. This single procedure will identify, at a much earlier stage, persons who have no entitlement to stay in the State and who can safely return to their country of origin.

Further on this specific recommendation, notwithstanding the legal situation, INIS, including RIA, has administrative arrangements in place with both Ombudsman’s Offices to assist and provide information on matters brought to its attention.

I will now turn to the third recommendation – that responsibility for centre inspections to be given to an independent body such as HIQA. Whilst it’s understandable that HIQA is cited as an example of an independent inspection body, it is not the only one and moreover its remit is strictly covered in legislation.

I think it’s important to point out that the Reception and Integration Agency, RIA – the unit in the Department of Justice and Equality responsible for the administration of the direct provision system – already engages an independent private body to carry out inspections of its centres. All centres 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. Moreover, to add to the transparency of the system, all completed inspections are published on RIA’s website – www.ria.gov.ie.. Anyone – researchers, TDs, residents of centres, NGO’s and so on – can examine these reports in detail.

It also has to be said that asylum accommodation centres do not exist in isolation. They are subject to not only RIA inspections, but to other State inspections. They are, for example, subject to inspection by Fire Officers and, in relation to food issues, to unannounced inspections by Environmental Health Officers.

This is not to say that the inspection regime cannot be improved. It can and I will await the Working Group findings in this regard.

Finally, in relation to the recommendation relating to Freedom of Information, the FOI Acts have long applied to the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service and the Reception and Integration Agency and, by virtue of the Freedom of Information Act, 2014 have been extended to Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT) with effect from 14 April, 2015 In relation to commercially sensitive matters, the usual provisions and exemptions of the FOI Acts apply and there are no special provisions relating to immigration related matters. To be as transparent as possible, RIA currently makes available on request contract details for all contracts to the end of January each year in respect of all financial information up to the end of December two years previously. For example, at the end of January, 2015 the records were updated to end of December 2012.the tables for which provide a context for the monies paid for each contract, such as the length of the contract and the number of persons for which services are contracted.

I believe the Joint Committee has performed a very useful public service with its report. That report, along with the report of the Working Group, will fully inform the Government in the decisions it will have to make in reforming a system which has the subject of much criticism.

I look forward to hearing the debate on this report.

ENDS