A MIGRANT RIGHTS group has called on the Government to put a realistic timeline in place to end Direct Provision or risk “talking about this forever”.
It comes as the Department of Integration prepares to revise its plan to end the system by 2024 following the war in Ukraine, an increase in the number of asylum applicants and the ongoing housing crisis.
The Government published its White Paper for ending Direct Provision in February 2021.
Under the proposed new model, international protection applicants would spend no more than four months in six State-owned, not-for-profit centres before moving into their own accommodation.
The government said it intended to establish a new international protection support service, which would be in place by 2024.
At the time, it was heralded as a landmark shift away from the widely criticised privatised system by committing to a Government-led human rights-based approach to housing asylum seekers in Ireland.
However, it is now clear that the State-run, privately operated system of accommodating asylum seekers will still be in place next year.
Early this year, Integration Minister Roderic O’Gorman said that it will be “very difficult” to end Direct Provision by 2024 due to the impact of the war in Ukraine and the increase in the number of asylum applicants.
In April, the Minister confirmed that a review of the “timelines and deliverables” of the white paper was under way.
In a statement to The Journal, a spokesperson for the Department of Integration said: “It is the view that the changed operational environment, as well as the scale of the current needs, requires a move away from reliance on private-sector and service sector accommodation and towards state owned accommodation, to ensure the state is meeting its statutory obligations and to deliver a more permanent and sustainable model of accommodation for IP applicants.”
The spokesperson said it expects the review will be completed “shortly” and a new set of proposals and timelines will be brought to Government next month.
A revised strategic plan will then be published once the revised white paper has been agreed to.
The spokesperson said that as of 10 August, there were 22,700 people being accommodated by the State in 220 International Protection Accommodation Service (IPAS) settings.
The Direct Provision system has been repeatedly criticised by migrant rights groups due to the length of time people remain in centres while their asylum applications or appeals are processed, the conditions of centres and the psychological effects on those living in these centres.
Fiona Hurley, CEO of migrant and refugee rights group Nasc, told The Journal that the revised plan must provide people with a dignified and safe standard of living.
“Long-term, we want to see what the Government’s commitment to ending Direct Provision is now. We know that the plan will likely look quite different to the White Paper published in 2021, but it’s important that we see what the plan is in the medium to long term,” she said.
“We want to see that no one is becoming homeless and if the State is investing in infrastructure, that they’re investing in infrastructure that meets at least the ethos of the white paper, where there are centres that have integration support built in, rather than investing a lot of money in something like a floatel.”
Hurley said there are ongoing concerns about the conditions of Direct Provision centres around the country.
The government said [Direct Provision] wasn’t fit for purpose in 2021. Conditions have really only deteriorated since then.
“There are people living in tented accommodation and that’s something that would have been unthinkable three years ago,” she said.
She said people are being placed in centres with very limited public transport, leaving them isolated, while Nasc has heard concerns about the diminishing quality and standard of food in some centres.
However, recent protests against asylum seeker accommodation has created fear around raising these concerns, she said.
“People are afraid to talk about their experiences then. I think that has been a pretty significant change.”
Bulelani Mfaco of the Movement of Asylum Seekers in Ireland (MASI) group told The Journal that it is “difficult” to be hopeful about an end to the system given the Government’s failure to keep its initial commitment to dismantle the system by next year.
“We questioned [the Government's] intentions right at the start when they announced their intention to end direct provision because they didn’t actually start implementing many of the recommendations that were put forward by the Catherine Day advisory group,” he said.
“How many reports and white papers do we need for the government to start undoing many of the harms that have been created by the Direct Provision system?
The only people who seem to be happy with this arrangement, of course, are the people who run the Direct Provision system because they have made a lot of money by cramming people into small rooms and charging an extortionate amount from the government for it.
The “segregated living” seen in centres around the country sees people crammed into tiny rooms without any scope for private family life, Mfaco said.
“When you share a bedroom with several strangers for years and years on end, you can’t really expect the person to have any meaningful social and private family life or dating life.”
Hurley said that some improvements in the centres, such as having play areas and places to do homework have children, have been “pulled back” in an effort to make more space for accommodation.
“The actual experience of someone in a centre now is worse than it was before. Children have no personal space to grow up. We’re talking to mothers who are saying it’s really difficult to potty train their children because they just simply have no privacy to do it.”
While ending Direct Provision is a priority, there has also been ongoing criticism of the process of seeking international protection in Ireland.
According to Hurley, some asylum seekers are unable to access legal advice before a decision on their application comes through.
“People are also being moved between emergency accommodation, so it is possible that someone misses an importance letter and may be deemed not to be cooperating with the process or simply miss information on the date of their hearing. This leaves people without legal representation in a very difficult position.
“We also know that people are very unlikely to disclose things, particularly gender-based violence or torture, at the outset of their application.”
Asylum seekers must apply through a solicitor to obtain a medico-legal report, a document that supports a torture survivor’s asylum claim.
According to the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, if an asylum seeker is represented by the Legal Aid Board, then the medico-legal report will be paid for through legal aid. If the request is made by a private practitioner, the report must be paid for privately.
Spirasi, Ireland’s national centre for victims of torture, receive a fee of €492 per report from the State through the Legal Aid Board’s Refugee Legal Service while the cost to produce each report is €1,190.
“If you’re a survivor of torture in Ireland, there is a long waiting list for a medico-legal report,” Hurley said.
“That can take quite a long time because there are quite a limited number of places where you can get these types of reports. It will be almost impossible for you to get an appointment before a decision is made on your case to support your claim that you are a survivor of torture. That certainly is really worrying about the process.”
Asylum seekers must complete their questionnaire in English on the day of their application.
Hurley said that questions have been raised about the quality of interpretation in Ireland. There is no accredited training course for interpreters in Ireland.
There have been multiple stories in the past of people saying that their information wasn’t interpreted correctly or that the interpreter represented them incorrectly.
There are also currently no legally binding deadlines in place for issuing decisions when it comes to Direct Provision, something Mfaco criticised the government for.
Hurley said that it is understandable not to have legally-binding deadlines in place in some cases.
“In some cases, people will be waiting for documentation or there will be issues with establishing identities so there might be reasons why the State might not be able to meet a statutory deadline if they had one in place,” she said.
“We don’t want to see long processing times, particularly when applications are straightforward, but it is also important that safeguards aren’t taken away in the name of efficiencies.”
In a statement to The Journal, the Department of Justice said: “The median processing time for first instance decisions in quarter two of 2023 was 12 months, a reduction from 18 months over the course of 2022.
“The median processing times for appeals in quarter two 2023 was just below 5 months, down from 15 months at the beginning of 2022. Currently fewer than 2% of people are waiting over two years for a first-instance decision, typically for reasons not in the IPO’s control.”
As of the end of July, 4,802 first-instance decisions have been made by the IPO, while the number of applications in the IPO where a recommendation has been made or closed off has been “trending upwards” since the beginning of the year.
The Department said that international protection applicants from safe countries of origin now receive a first-instance decision in less than three months, a reduction from 22 to 26 months early last year.
Ahead of the review of the white paper being presented to Government, both MASI and Nasc are calling for a number of commitments to be included as part of ending the system.
Mfaco said MASI is calling for an end to institutional and segregated living, as well as for all asylum seekers to be allowed to work.
Asylum seekers in Ireland can apply for permission to work if they have not received a decision on their application within five months.
“If you’re going to end Direct Provision, at least allow people to have a means to earn a living so that they can support themselves,” he said.
“We would love to have the support of the State in terms of accessing the labour market without restriction so that people can support themselves. It’s particularly difficult for families as we’re coming up to the start of the school year because their children go to the same schools as everybody else and they have the same needs as everybody else, yet some parents in Direct Provision aren’t allowed to work so that they can support their children.”
Nasc said the Government must ensure that children in Direct Provision can access child benefit payments.
“We know that the price of everyday goods has gone up and there are children in centres who are very much suffering because of this,” she said.
In a State that has committed to the welfare of children, then excluding one cohort of children from access to child benefit payment, it’s reprehensible.
It is calling for the Government to ensure that providers of IPAS accommodation are trained in child protection and safeguarding and that there is an adequate complaints process in place for residents of centres.
It is also calling for the Health Information and Quality Authority (Hiqa) to carry out inspections of emergency centres as well as permanent centres to ensure that they are adhering to the National Standards, which require accommodation centres to be safe, with adequate facilities for residents.
In late 2021, Sinn Féin TD Eoin Ó Broin tabled legislation to give Hiqa the power to carry out inspections. It is currently at second stage in the Dáil.
According to the Department of Justice, as of July this year, there were 15,823 international protection applications pending.
There were 1,029 applications received for asylum in July, down from 1,266 applications last July.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say