I wish to raise the issue of direct provision, specifically in the context of the recent issuing of letters to single male asylum seekers who are on deportation orders telling them that they must vacate their direct provision centres within four weeks. Many are from countries, such as, for example, Somalia and Palestine, to which Ireland cannot deport people. Will this new policy extend to families and children on deportation orders?

The direct provision system was established 17 years ago and was only meant to be an interim solution in respect of the high number of asylum seekers entering Ireland seeking the protection of the State. It was intended to provide asylum seekers with temporary accommodation while their applications were being processed. Now, more than 4,000 asylum seekers, of whom 1,600 are children, are in direct provision.

The issuing of these letters by the Reception and Integration Agency, RIA, of the Department of Justice and Equality has been condemned by the Irish Immigrant Support Centre, Nasc, which claims that this is actively seeking to make asylum seekers homeless and destitute. These deportees have no entitlement to social welfare and will be unable to access homeless services. Thus, they will have no money, homes, residency or right to work. Invariably, they will become homeless and add to the crisis of street homelessness.

The McMahon report of 2015 brought about some improvements, but more than 25% of asylum seekers are still waiting for longer than three years to have their applications for asylum processed. There is no statutory time limit on processing applications. This leads to a loss of autonomy and self-worth. As the Supreme Court ruled this year, not being able to work in these circumstances goes against the Constitution.

The State has a duty of care to these asylum seekers to look after them in a more humane way until they are granted asylum, subsidiary protection or leave to remain or exit Ireland voluntarily or are deported. They should not be turned out onto the streets without support. Why has this shift in policy occurred? The Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, has stated that no asylum seeker will be made homeless as a result of these letters. What does that mean? Are these letters to be ignored? Has the RIA changed its mind and withdrawn them? What exactly is going on? I would be grateful for the Minister's reply.

I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. As he outlined, we are providing temporary accommodation - bed, breakfast and board - for almost 5,000 individuals.

Every year, approximately 2,000 new applicants come and we try to provide a service for them. The idea behind this accommodation is to provide for people who would otherwise arrive in a very vulnerable condition. There is a limited number of such places, with very high occupancy rates, that must accommodate the 50 people a week who need accommodation and who have a call on this. We must ensure we can, to the best of our ability, be fair and equal to all those who are making a case to the State. There has been significant effort to improve the conditions. The McMahon report made 173 recommendations of which 133 have been fully implemented and a further 36 are in progress. That has brought tangible improvement in the conditions of people who are awaiting a decision. It includes standards, availability of self-catering and so on.

In terms of the ban on employment, the court has yet to make an order. On foot of that order, the Government will have to consider its implications. A provisional ruling has been made but the final order is yet to be made. We have made huge efforts to simplify the process through legislation in order that people are not in temporary accommodation for long periods. It was never intended that it should be for long periods. To facilitate people coming through, there must be some effort in respect of people who have been the subject of deportation orders to see that they would move on since their cases have been fully adjudicated under the international rules we apply and a decision made that they are not eligible for status in Ireland. That is the position. We will try to deal with each person in the most humane way we can. We cannot guarantee that everyone is able to remain forever in accommodation if he or she has been unsuccessful in his or her application. This is an effort to deal with a problem in a reasonable and fair way as best we can.

Direct provision needs to be reviewed in its entirety because it has become an institutional form of living. Many asylum seekers have been waiting more than five years to have their asylum application processed. That leads them to live in accommodation that is entirely unsuitable for them for prolonged periods. They are banned from taking up work, live in a state of idleness and are confined to reception centres. They do not have an opportunity to cook; they are eating in canteens at set hours and it has become an institutional form of life. The right to employment is still denied to them but hopefully it will be rectified in the coming weeks. Children living in direct provision suffer greatly just as children living in homeless situations do. They live in fear for their personal safety even in the centres. There are 35 centres around the country, which are mobile homes, converted hotels or such like. The accommodation is cramped and overcrowded. It costs €50 million to fund direct provision. The money could be spent in a much different way.

We have 2,000 people per annum presenting with a submission for asylum. These centres are an offer by the State to provide full bed and board, access to utilities, welfare payments and medical facilities. People are not obliged to accept offers and many do not take them up. They represent the State attempting to provide for such people, instead of the 2,000 who come in going onto the streets and being vulnerable as they would be. The State is providing an option for them to be accommodated in this way. It is not an ideal situation. The McMahon report, which investigated this, has been done and action has been taken to implement the recommendations it made.

With regard to the issue of dealing with cases more quickly, the new legislation will accelerate it and we hope there will no longer be the long delays the Deputy rightly says have been a feature of this provision in the past.

The Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, who is a particularly compassionate and vigilant Minister, has visited these centres. He is very keen to try to deal with this as effectively as possible. He is dealing with a difficult situation in a way that is as fair as we can be. When a decision is made to reject a case there has to be an end to the process.