The direct provision system has been an outrage of State-sanctioned human rights abuses against men, women and children. It ensures that vulnerable people who are trapped in the system suffer again and again. It is a system of State coercion, disenfranchisement and enforced poverty, run by private companies for huge profit which could not care less about the people they are supposed to be looking after. The plight of these people, trapped for up to a decade, acts as a deterrent to people from coming here - maybe it is intentional. On top of this, the Government's pitiful response to the housing crisis has led to many people who have been granted asylum having to stay in direct provision, because there is no place for them to go.

The fact that the Government has failed to deal with the housing crisis means direct provision will not be closed any time soon. In light of that, I ask the Taoiseach to address two issues. Our office spoke to Nick Henderson, CEO of the Irish Refugee Council, this morning. The council sees no vulnerability assessments being done, as were envisaged by Article 22 of the directive. Two other groups confirmed this view in their submission to the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality this morning. Assessments of primary healthcare needs are being done by the Safetynet group and these are clearly required but they are not vulnerability assessments as envisaged by the directive. A much more comprehensive and wide-ranging assessment is envisaged by the directive and required by law. A victim of torture will require intensive counselling and support but we do not even carry out an assessment capable of identifying what a person's problems might have been. Some people have seen family members shot in front of them, or drown beside them in the ocean. Article 22 requires vulnerability assessments but, despite the fact that the Government transposed the directive into domestic law 12 months ago, they are still not happening. We are in breach of EU law. When will a fit-for-purpose system to carry out these vulnerability assessments, in accordance with the wide-ranging and generous spirit envisaged by Article 22 of the directive, be in place?

I am afraid I will have to check up on that and come back to the Deputy with an answer about vulnerability assessments and EU law. I am not fully briefed on this but I will check it out and get back to the Deputy with a reply in the next couple of days, as best I can.

Government acknowledges that there are many people who have been living in direct provision for far too long. A lot of that relates to the fact that we have a very slow system for deciding whether someone is allowed to stay in the country or not when they claim asylum. That is to do with our own processes but it is also to do with the large number of judicial reviews. We believe, however, that as the International Protection Act 2015 is implemented, decisions will be made more speedily and people will find out much more quickly whether they can stay or should return to the country whence they came.

Direct provision is not compulsory and there are many asylum seekers who do not live in direct provision but with friends or family members who have already come to Ireland. After a few months, asylum seekers have the right to work so some can actually provide for their own accommodation. It is not a requirement that a person checks in or out, which some people believe to be the case, and a person is free to leave at any time. Many people have done so, to live with friends and relations who have come from their home country or in their own accommodation, having found work. Direct provision is offered to asylum seekers and they are provided with accommodation, heat, lighting, food and spending money but we are trying to raise the standards. That is being led by the guidelines that were put together by Mr. Justice Bryan McMahon, which we are following in order to raise standards and so that people in direct provision get decent accommodation.

This morning, Mr. Justice McMahon said many of his recommendations were still to be implemented, despite the Government boast last year that 98% of them had been implemented. That is not true. The Taoiseach said people were not compelled to be there but I know plenty of these people and they would not be in there if they had an alternative. Because of the housing shortages, however, there are very few alternatives. Many children still do not feel safe in direct provision, women do not feel safe, members of the LGBT fraternity do not feel safe there and many people are still being stripped of their dignity. In April in the Mosney direct provision centre, a mother of three was hospitalised after an attempt on her life. The incident shows clearly that the direct provision system is sometimes incompatible with basic human dignity and respect for human rights. The residents of Mosney staged a protest on 25 April, which they described as a cry for help. The owner of Mosney was caught on camera trying to break up the protest and in the video one can clearly hear him telling the protestors "this will have an impact on you". It was a direct threat. The residents in direct provision are too afraid to complain about conditions for fear of marginalisation, rejection of their application or relocation by the management. Phelim McCloskey's threat, caught on camera, is evidence of this but this time the situation was too much for residents to take. These people are being brutalised by the system. The Government needs to investigate the management practices in Mosney and other direct provision centres. Inspections by the Reception and Integration Agency, RIA, are woefully inadequate. Will the Taoiseach investigate these management practices?

I have met Mr. Justice McMahon on many occasions and I have had the privilege of attending some of the citizenship ceremonies with him. He did a very good piece of work in setting out what the standards should be for direct provision accommodation. We are implementing those standards but they are not fully implemented yet and we acknowledge that. The Department of Justice and Equality, the Refugee Integration Agency and the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, INIS, would welcome complaints by any resident in direct provision at Mosney or any other centre and any complaint would certainly not affect a person's application, either adversely or favourably.

However, we do have an underlying problem of a large number of people coming from countries that are considered to be relatively safe, such as Albania, for example, or countries like Georgia, countries that are applying to join the European Union. We have a large number of people as well for whom their applications are taking a very long time to process, in many cases because of recurring judicial reviews. We need to do something to speed up the process so that those who are genuine refugees get quick answers and are allowed to stay here and get the protection they deserve and those who are not get to the quick answer that they need to return to where they came from.