Seven years like a robot - Village Magazine

 —  April – May 2013

don’t know how I am going to cope. I have

spent seven years living like a robot. I have

been told where to go, what time to go there

and almost what to eat”. These were the

words of an intelligent, articulate woman from

East Africa, spoken to me over a year ago. She

had been living in Ireland for seven years but for

all of that time she had been in accommodation

centres run by the State for those seeking asylum.

She was moved several times to diﬀerent accom-

modation centres around the country. She had

just learnt that she was ﬁnally to be given per-

mission to stay in the country. She had been given

a few weeks to move out of the accommodation

centre, ﬁnd a place to live and start making deci-

sions for herself and her three children, all born

in Ireland.

The Direct Provision system was set up in

 in response to a crisis towards the end of

the s when the numbers seeking asylum in

Ireland had increased rapidly. As of December

 there were , people living in the

accommodation centres. More than a third of res-

idents in the accommodation centres have lived

in them for more than three years. It is diﬃcult

to understand why the authorities maintain this

system when the evidence is clear that it comes at

huge expense, both ﬁnancial and human.

The accommodation centres are known as

‘Direct Provision’ because the state provides

directly for the immediate physical needs of asy-

lum seekers. It is a system that has never been

set out in legislation or deﬁned in any publicly-

available document. It has been rolled out in the

form of accommodation facilities whose original

use was for short term stay - mobile homes, holi-

day chalets, hotels, students’ hostels – with just a

small number of purpose-built accommodation

centres. All of the accommodation centres have

been owned, or run, by private companies. These

companies have never been required to have any

particular training or capacity to accommodate,

on a long-term basis, vulnerable adults and chil-

dren. Dispersal around the country is a central

feature of the system. By and large, it is a sys-

tem that is on a ‘no choice’ basis. You go where

you are told, when you are told and often with

little notice.

In February , I spoke at the launch

of a report published by the Free Legal Advice

Centres. “One size doesn’t ﬁt all” reviewed the

Direct Provision system on its tenth anniversary.

The launch was covered in the media and led to a

phone call to me from a Dublin woman. She told

me about the struggle that she and her husband

had to pay their bills and keep their heads above

water. That is in itself another story that is sadly

too common for many in Ireland today. She said

that she and her husband would love to give up

that struggle and go and live in a holiday cha-

let where all their needs were met. She had no

sympathy with those who advocated for a better

system than the one of Direct Provision or with

those who lived in the centres.

I don’t blame that woman for thinking that

asylum seekers have it easy. Yes she could, if she

wanted to, imagine the diﬃculty of having just

€. per week for herself and €. per week

for her children. But she doesn’t know what life

is like when you are forced to be dependent upon

the state, year in year out, with no control over

your life and no opportunity to work or make

any signiﬁcant decisions for yourself let alone

for your children. She cannot know the eﬀect of

politics

Seven years like a robot

‘Direct provision’

accommodation for

asylum-seekers is

inhumane, anti-family

and proﬂigate

sue conlan

Table 1: Duration of Stay by Applicants in Direct Provision

0-1 yrs 1-2 yrs 2-3 yrs 3-4 yrs 4-5 yrs 5-6 yrs 6-7 yrs 7+ yrs

539 630 770 945 812 670 397 272

Mobile homes, holiday

chalets, hotels, students’

hostels – with just a small

number of purpose-built

accommodation centres, all

run by private companies

Typical room in direct provision



forced idleness and the anxiety that comes from

not knowing when you will be able to move on

and begin to settle down. She could not know the

fear of living with the threat of deportation. She

doesn’t know the impact of being a victim of tor-

ture or sometimes unspeakable trauma that some

of those who seek asylum in Ireland today have

been subjected to.

The evidence that suggests something is seri-

ously wrong with the system is clear. The ﬁnancial

costs are high. Recently it was revealed in reply

to a parliamentary question from Maureen

O’Sullivan TD that the state paid over € mil-

lion between  and  to the private

contractors that own these Direct Provision cen-

tres. The human costs are particularly evident

when the impact upon children is considered.

Children form an increasingly large group

among the residents in Direct Provision centres.

% of residents in  were children (a total

of ). By the end of , the proportion

was % ( children). They occupy a living

space in close proximity both to those to whom

they are related and those that they have no con-

nection with whatsoever. For many, all they know

is this form of institutionalised living.

The Reception and Integration Agency

oversees the Direct Provision system. This

is a multi-departmental agency, under the

Department of Justice, Equality, and Defence,

which includes the HSE and the Department of

Education and Science. The HSE is represented

through its unit on Child and Family Services that

has a duty to assess reports regarding a child’s

welfare or safety. This unit provides statistics in

the Reception and Integration Agency’s Annual

Reports on the referrals made to it which relate

to child protection issues - see chart .

The response to the child-protection issues

raised in the Reception and Integration Agency’s

Annual Reports may be to blame the parents for

their inabilities as carers. But the ability to be a

parent and provide for and protect your child is

aﬀected by your circumstances. In the case of fam-

ilies in Direct Provision, parents are infantilised

and denied the opportunity to fulﬁl their respon-

sibilities. That is contrary to the UN Convention

on the Rights of the Child which requires States

to provide “appropriate assistance” to parents in

the performance of their duties.

In September , the Irish Refugee Council

published a report entitled “State sanctioned

child poverty and exclusion: the case of children

in state accommodation for asylum seekers”. The

report examined how children, some of them Irish

citizens, have been treated in the Direct Provision

system. The evidence, dating back over ten years,

included examples of malnutrition, poverty, over-

crowding, lack of play space and the detrimental

eﬀect on family life. There has been no formal

response from any Government Minister to the

Report.

The reference point for this report was the UN

Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratiﬁed by

Ireland in . The Reception and Integration

Agency has stated that it seeks to adhere to this

Convention. However the Convention includes the

rights of children to the development of their full

physical and mental potential; the right to pro-

tection from inﬂuences that are harmful to their

development; and the right to participation in

family, cultural and social life. The Irish Refugee

Council report suggests a signiﬁcant gap between

the reality of Direct Provision and Ireland’s com-

mitments under the Convention.

Appearing before the Dáil Public Accounts

Committee on st March , Brian Purcell,

Secretary General of the Department of Justice,

stated that the system of Direct Provision would

stay for the foreseeable future. This is not good

news. It will take time to replace the system of

Direct Provision, but it will have to go, as the evi-

dence cannot be ignored for much longer.

Sue Conlan is CEO of the Irish Refugee Council. The

Irish Refugee Council is co-ordinating a National Day

of Action about the Direct Provision system on 23rd

April 2013. For more information contact the IRC on

campaign@irishrefugeecouncil.ie

Table 2: Children as proportion of total direct-provision residents

YEAR 2008 2009 2010 As of 17/12/2012

NO. CHILDREN 2300 2070 2141 1818

NO. RESIDENTS 7209 6460 6130 4806

% CHILDREN 32 32 35 38

In 2012 the Irish Refugee

Council published a

report with examples of

malnutrition, poverty,

overcrowding, lack of play

space and the detrimental

effect on family life. There

has been no formal response

PERSONS seeking asylum apply to the Oﬃce

for Refugee Applications and, if refused, may

appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT).

Failed asylum-seekers may then seek judicial

review of these decisions in the High Court. Such

proceedings must be initiated within 14 days.

Many - probably most - failed asylum-seekers

challenge negative decisions in the courts. Very

signiﬁcant delays are experienced in these

cases. There are at least 2,000 cases waiting to

be heard. Four High Court judges are assigned

full time to the Asylum list and they hear about

8-10 cases each week. Cases being heard this

year may relate to asylum decisions taken 4-5

years ago. While waiting for cases to be heard,

asylum seekers live in what many believe is

substandard ‘direct provision’ accommodation.

Applicants receive approximately €19 per

week and are prohibited from working. Years of

forced idleness and cramped accommodation

has detrimental eﬀects on people. Children are

reared in these unsatisfactory circumstances

as their parents pursue court challenges. Even

if they are successful - and many of them are as

decision-making in the RAT is frequently found

by the High Court to be deﬁcient - their asylum

applications are sent back to the RAT to be re

assessed. Sometimes the new decision is itself

reviewed.

Once the asylum application has been

reviewed by the court, the failed asylum seeker

is then entitled to seek a form of protection

known as ‘subsidiary protection’. In every

other EU state, the asylum application and

the subsidiary-protection application are

assessed simultaneously. In Ireland they have

been separated. Thus a failed asylum-seeker, if

unsuccessful in court, will then embark on the

subsidiary-protect procedure and this too can

be challenged in court in a years-long process.

It is regrettable that both applications are not

heard together and that asylum seekers cannot

have their cases determined in weeks rather

than years. Expedition would be in the interest

both of applicants for refugee status and of the

State. MS

Laborious asylum process