My question is on direct provision. Direct provision is a system for accommodating those who are seeking asylum and it is now 20 years old. In general terms, it seeks to provide protection for those who are fleeing either political or religious persecution. It is an outdated system and needs to change. It was originally introduced in 1999 as a temporary emergency measure. The system has had some modifications over the years, particularly following the McMahon report of 2016, but essentially the basic system remains. The McMahon report's terms of reference were to look at improving the existing system but it did not look at providing alternative systems for asylum seekers. It looked at improving the speed at which their applications were processed and that was important for shortening their stays within the system. However, many stay in direct provision for several years, even after they have been granted refugee status because they have not been integrated into the community and they cannot find independent housing.

Ireland fulfils its obligations under international law by providing shelter, food, access to healthcare and education. However, it has been criticised by human rights organisations on the basis that the direct provision system is degrading and dehumanising because it segregates asylum seekers into institutional care and does not integrate them into the community. The demands on direct provision are increasing again, with more than 6,000 people in the system, including 1,700 children. They are a vulnerable group of people who have to spend a prolonged period of time within direct provision. There are 39 direct provision centres and almost every county has a centre. Due to increased demand, asylum seekers are now placed in temporary emergency accommodation, even outside the direct provision institutions.

In Clare, we have two centres, in Knockalisheen and Lisdoonvarna, and we are aware of the situation in Oughterard in Galway, which has been controversial over the past week or so. The choice of a site now follows a familiar pattern. There is an expression of interest, the locations are assessed, rumours circulate, fear of the unknown dominates discourse, protests opposing the location of a centre are held, tensions run high and people take up entrenched positions. There is a lack of engagement with the community and a lack of assurances that communities will not be disadvantaged by having a centre close by. There is a failure to assure that adequate supports will be put in place to provide adequate health, education, social inclusion and transport services. Fear of the unknown drives anxiety. Is direct provision a failed model and does the Government have anything to offer to provide new models of care?

There has been much comment in recent weeks and years about the system of direct provision. There has also been debate about the location of centres. I appeal to everyone to ensure this debate is thoughtful, respectful and factual, just as the Deputy's contribution was. Under EU and international law, Ireland, like other countries, is obliged to examine the claim of any person who comes here and claims international protection or asylum under defined grounds, such as a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, caste, nationality, religion, political opinions and membership of or participation in any particular social group or social activities. While that claim is being examined, the State is legally obliged to offer accommodation and related services to anyone without means, including all meals, medical care and utilities. A weekly personal allowance is paid to each person in a centre and exceptional needs are covered by the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. There is no obligation on any asylum seeker to accept the offer of accommodation and no restriction on their freedom of movement throughout the State.

I understand concerns have been raised by people in Oughterard. This is the latest such case as other communities have also raised concerns. Local communities have genuine questions. Where centres have opened in new locations, the Department has engaged with communities, addressed questions and supported communities in establishing links to new centres. I know people are unhappy that there are rumours, on the one hand, and a lack of information, on the other hand, in many cases but until the legal process is complete, the Department of Justice and Equality is somewhat restricted in what it can say. This has caused a lot of problems.

Direct provision was introduced 20 years ago, as the Deputy said, to deal with a situation where asylum seekers were effectively homeless. Any credible alternative put forward must be capable of providing immediate access to food, shelter and medical care to vulnerable people, as the direct provision model does. Since its inception, more than 60,000 people have been helped by the direct provision system. There are positive relationships between residents and local communities in areas where centres are already open in the State, including through friends of the centre groups, which promote integration between communities. That being said, direct provision is not ideal but we have to be honest too. People who advocate simply doing away with direct provision also have an obligation to outline what we should replace it with. We have a shortage of housing in the areas of social housing, affordable housing and rental accommodation. We will fix that and I am glad to say that supply in all of those categories is increasing rapidly. We also have significant increases in the number of people claiming asylum in Ireland and we need to ensure we can protect them and offer them shelter and support. Although we need to ensure standards across all the direct provision centres are sufficient, consistent and above a certain threshold, for now direct provision is the way to do this. However, we need to be open to change and to adapting that model to improve it in time.

It is incumbent on people to provide an alternative system or to at least provide suggestions to support an alternative system. One of the alternative systems is that, rather than having 120 or 220 people in one building, they would be dispersed throughout a community. Many of these centres are located in rural Ireland. One thing rural Ireland has is housing stock. What it does not have is people. Those people could be dispersed among communities and there is huge support for asylum seekers when they come to a community. Lisdoonvarna is a case in point. It was a controversial site in spring of last year and the community has embraced the asylum seekers who arrived in the town. Voluntary groups come together to support them but they are still congregated in one location, usually in a hotel or hostel that is no longer used.

The Department of Justice and Equality needs to look at a new model of dispersing people throughout a community, whereby, rather than allowing them to be congregated, they are integrated into a community. That is the direction in which the Government should go, which would counter what has happened recently with the protests in Oughterard. The community there was not informed or given assurances that they would have the necessary supports to look after such a large group of people coming into a relatively small community. However, if they were dispersed throughout the county or throughout an area, I do not think there would be the same level of opposition.

That is a fair point, and the truth is that the Government operates both models. We have 38 or 39 direct provision centres across 18 counties. Many other countries do not have that, but instead put nearly all their asylum applicants into one or two very large national centres. We are trying to ensure integration across the country and that towns, which are sometimes small, have direct provision centres as well. Irish integration has been quite good, considering the pressures that exist in that area.

We also accommodate refugees whose asylum status is already settled when they come to Ireland, although it is often done quietly. They are normally accommodated in private rental accommodation, in long-term leasing arrangements that ensure they are integrated and dispersed among communities. It is a good model. However, if we were to assign a percentage of social housing for asylum seekers or refugees, it could create a danger of resentment from people on housing lists. We need to be careful in how we manage this, but Ireland, by and large, has been quite good at integration, which has been noted in international commentary as well.