Ireland’s Battle to End Direct Provision
Liam Robinson / Jan 19 / Immigration
Direct Provision (DP), the system used in Ireland to accommodate asylum seekers, fails to acknowledge the human rights of thousands. It was first introduced as an emergency measure to meet the basic needs of those waiting for their application for refugee status to be processed. But what was meant to be a temporary measure is now a for-profit industry. Characterised by negligence, DP centres strip those living within them of their autonomy and offer no alternatives to the suffocating living conditions they have to endure.
There are 47 Direct Provision centres scattered around the country, a large majority of which are run for profit. Since 2000, the government has spent around €1.3 billion on this policy, giving the money to private companies contracted to run and service them. Many of these centres are former hotels or holiday camps, providing an incentive for owners to convert locations to Direct Provision centres rather than independently reinvesting in their properties. Private companies have been criticised for cost-cutting at the expense of the wellbeing of residents. This is encapsulated by the revelation that Aramark Corporation, who also profit from food catering to US prisons, informed staff members not to give residents food outside of mealtimes, resulting in an unwell child being refused a slice of bread.
The Lived Experience
Upon arrival in Ireland, asylum seekers need to complete two interviews as part of their application to be officially recognised as a refugee and granted citizenship. They are then housed in a DP centre with the assurance that, for most, the decision should take no longer than 6 months. This is rarely the case. According to Doras, the average time spent in accommodation is 24 months and it has been known to have risen beyond 10 years.
During this time, residents are expected to live off an allowance of just €38.80 per week. Often separated from their local community and with limited opportunities for work and further education, the resulting isolation and inactivity can have a serious effect on mental health. On top of this, residents can be placed in shared rooms with up to seven others, meaning they have almost no privacy. Limited cooking facilities mean that the majority of residents rely on the food provided by DP centres during set mealtimes as their only option to regularly eat. A report by ‘Nasc’, the Irish Immigrant Support Centre, found that the “food was regularly described as inedible, of poor quality, monotonous, bland, and culturally inappropriate” by a sample of residents living in three DP centres in Cork.
A representative from the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission described Direct Provision as a “severe violation of human rights”.
A meal given to a pregnant woman in Direct Provision, which went viral on social media earlier this year
Contact was made with someone currently living in a DP centre, via MASI (the Movement of Asylum Seekers in Ireland), who was happy to speak about her experience but preferred to remain anonymous.
The interviewee is 20 years old and has been living in an accommodation centre for nearly 10 months with her family of 4. She shares a room with her teenage brother and her mother shares a room with her 7-year-old brother.
Limited by the scope of the accommodation centre, she emphasised the “very little freedom” and “very little to no privacy” she is able to experience on a day-to-day basis. The room she shares with her brother has only enough room to contain 2 single beds and 2 cupboards, so she has made a small area beside her bed to paint, sketch or write. They try to prepare their own food at least once a week. But being limited by the meagre financial allowance allotted to them, and having just a kettle and a microwave in her mother’s room, they are mostly forced to eat the food provided by the accommodation centre.
Being constrained to this small room for large periods of time hinders the opportunities to find outlets to exercise and socialise. Being relatively new to the centre, she mentioned that everyone already has their own circles of friends and many other females around her age tend to stay in their rooms; she mentioned how the recreational room is often dominated by men, which can be uncomfortable.
Work and educational opportunities are hard to come by too, a problem that has only been compounded by COVID-19. There is no support on offer to find work or connect with the local community, and although the accommodation centre does offer basic courses in English and Computer Literacy, these are of no additional value to the interviewee and her family.
She described how her time in DP has impacted her mental wellbeing, stating that while she is a naturally “very outgoing and extroverted” person, her time in DP has left her with a feeling of “being caught in a limbo”. She has experienced a loss of confidence and is suffering from anxiety and panic attacks. “I always feel as if I am in this very dark place and I have no way to escape. I have to continuously remind myself that things could get better and that there are reasons to live”. She explained that it hasn’t been easy to reach out to mental health support services for various personal reasons, and meeting with someone in person is currently out of the picture due to COVID-19.
The interviewee voiced her aspirations to start trading, to become a chartered accountant and to start her own business; to one day be financially independent and have the freedom to pursue her interests within the art field. She also expressed an interest in travelling, particularly to countries with evidence of ancient civilisations.
When asked if there were any further points she would like to make, the interviewee responded:
“I think that there is a stigma attached to a person when they are a refugee or asylum seeker. Not many people realise the potential and capabilities of those within the system. Even though there are many people who strive for the inclusion of various communities, there are still a lot of times where, I personally feel, people can’t help but feel excluded. Even if it is in the tiniest or non-intended ways”
Importantly, she illustrated how the staff members of the accommodation centre are “helpful”, “kind” and “do their best to help”; she was actually impressed on her arrival about how clean they kept the centre. In the case of this accommodation centre, it seems that both staff members and residents do all they can to maximise the living conditions, in spite of a system that is simply not catered for healthy and long-term living.
Progress Made and Prospects for Change
A significant and growing proportion of the Irish population has been advocating to end Direct Provision for the best part of 20 years. Activist groups, like MASI, have formed to give a collective voice to asylum seekers, charities have stepped in to provide support where the system has failed, and genuine progress has been made. Although the system of DP wrongly creates an environment that requires external organisations to step in in the first place, the work that they do has become vital. A few examples include BetterTogether located in Cork, who focus on empowering women seeking asylum; Recruit Refugees Ireland, who help refugees and asylum seekers to find work; and Our Table, who provide opportunities to develop skills, meet others and find work through food.
On the back of continued pressure fronted by volunteers, activists and organisations, an advisory group chaired by Catherine Day released a major report recommending a plan to replace Direct Provision by mid-2023. This new accommodation system would be led by the state and would include the provision of housing and shorter processing times.
This signifies headway and provides promise for the abolition of Direct Provision. However, the fact that this system has been allowed to exist for 2 decades highlights the gap between empty promises made by the state and real change. This will certainly be kept in mind during what is a vital period for progress, with the anticipation of a government White Paper based on the Catherine Day report now to be released by February 2021, having been delayed from December 2020. As stated by Amnesty International in response to the report, “this is just the beginning”.