Replace direct provision - Village Magazine

30May 2015

N the st of April  I oﬃ-

cially submitted my resignation

as the named individual repre-

senting the Core Group of

asylum-seekers and Refugees on the

Government Working Group established

to examine improvements to the protec-

tion process and the Direct Provision

system.

The working group was set up as the

Government’s response to the country-

wide protests by asylum-seekers living

in direct provision and their supporters.

This response presented the Govern-

ment with an opportunity to remedy a

broken system for asylum-seekers. The

structure of direct provision raises

cause for concern for the Irish state,

given the level of public resources

invested in the system and its

administration.

I felt that, coming together with so

called experts on the issue, this was a

step in the right direction to overcome

the cultural blindness that I believe is

one of the factors underpinning this

failed system alongside the fact that

there is no legislative framework for

these reception centres. There were

restrictions in the terms of reference in

relating to coming up with an alterna-

tive for those who live in this system. I

felt this needed to change immediately

if there was to be any credibility that the

rights of asylum-seekers would be

upheld in line with Ireland’s interna-

tional obligations under various human

rights instruments. However, I took up

my position with the hope that the

Working Group would be committed to

the liberation of people who are being

oppressed.

It was not long before I discovered

that some members of the group could

see the problem but did not think they

were a part of it. My participation on the

Working Group was an opportunity to

see and learn how decisions are made or

not made. I am glad I stayed up to the

time I did. I participated in the consulta-

tion process and most of the plenary

and thematic meetings. I felt I was well

informed and had given it my best when

I made my decision to exit.

I initially agreed to be on the Working

Group on the basis of a mandate to

negotiate and safeguard that the report

and its recommendations would oﬀer

real progressive change, and restore the

dignity of asylum-seekers and their

children through the creation of a pro-

tection system underpinned by human

rights and in line with international

best practice. During the period that I

was a Working Group member I pushed

hard to ensure that the voices of asy-

lum-seekers and refugees were heard. I

believe that the issues of concern to

asylum-seekers were well articulated

during the consultation process. It was

therefore my realistic hope that these

issues would inform the recommenda-

tions of the Working Group.

However, after conscientiously going

through all three thematic sub-group

draft reports, which will form the ﬁnal

plenary report, I feel that the proposed

recommendations fall far too short of

my own expectations and probably

those of the asylum-seeking community

Central amongst my concerns was

that without the option to discuss any

alternative to direct provision or even to

submit an alternative report without

referring to the terms of reference, very

little change would be made to the cur-

rent system. Personally, as things stood

I could not stand over the limited rec-

ommendations that were going forward

from the sub-groups to the plenary, nor

sign my name to them. My conscience

will not allow me to endorse an exercise

that has not truly taken into considera-

tion the issues that were clearly

articulated by asylum-seekers during

the consultation process and through

other submissions.

However, the decision of the Core

Group of asylum-seekers and refugees is

to stay on and continue to ﬁght. It is my

hope that the Core Group will capitalise

on my resignation and push further for

recommendations that have some posi-

tive outcomes for the people caught up

in this system. Communities which

experience inequality, poverty and

injustices should be protected and their

rights vindicated. Ultimately, I believe

high standards must apply to any recep-

tion system underpinned by the

requirements of the EU Reception

Directive.

I am still participating in the struggle

to end direct provision and I will con-

tinue to campaign and ﬁght for the

rights of all people let down by the cur-

rent system which is broken and only

results in further marginalisation. This

system props up a ﬂawed model that

does not work for my comrades in the

core group and beyond them for the

wider community of asylum-seekers. •

High standards

must apply to

any reception

system

underpinned

by the

requirements

of the EU

Reception

Directive

“

NEWS Direct Provision

Replace direct provision

I resigned from the government Working Group as no alternatives were being considered.

By Reuben Hambackachere

asylum-seekers

accommodation