WHAT IS DIRECT PROVISION?

Direct Provision was introduced in 1999 as a temporary measure in response to Ireland’s high number of asylum applications. It was designed to provide short-term accommodation for asylum seekers as they waited for their application to be processed. Yet more than 20 years later, Direct Provision is still in place. The Minister for Justice confirmed in May that almost 8,000 asylum seekers are currently living in the system. Direct Provision provides basic needs for asylum seekers, including accommodation, food, healthcare, and education. Individuals live alongside other asylum seekers in just under 40 dedicated accommodation centres across Ireland. The ‘for-profit’ nature of the system has drawn heavy criticism, as only seven of these centres are state owned and all are managed by private contractors. In June, the new Irish government promised to end Direct Provision within the next five years. So what exactly is wrong with Direct Provision and how can the government learn from this system as they create its replacement? 

LIFE UNDER DIRECT PROVISION

Centres range from hotels to caravan parks, with residents living in overcrowded shared accommodation. There are reports of single adults sharing rooms with up to eight people of different backgrounds and nationalities. With a weekly allowance of €38.80, it is hardly surprising that the system has been described as “state-sponsored poverty”. The majority of residents do not have the right to work or access to higher education. The system is characterised by resident's lack of privacy, as staff can enter rooms at any time. In many centres, the lack of kitchen facilities means that residents cannot even cook for themselves. As many of the centres are in rural Ireland, transport options are limited, leading to increasing isolation, no means of integrating with the local community, and limited access to support services. 

Following the 2015 McMahon report, the system was improved in several ways, including quicker application processing and better living conditions. In 2017, the Irish Supreme Court ruled that Ireland’s ban on employment for asylum seekers was unconstitutional. This landmark case means that asylum seekers now have limited access to work. But these improvements do not counteract the negative effect Direct Provision has on the lives of residents. Many have experienced declining physical and mental health. The European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance found that 90% of residents suffered from depression after six months in the system. These effects are inevitably exacerbated by the length of time spent in Direct Provision - the average length of stay is 24 months, with some spending up to 10 years in the system. 

LOOKING FORWARD

Direct Provision will end within the next government's life cycle. That was the joint pledge made by Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, and the Green Party. The system will be replaced with “a new international protection accommodation policy centred on a not-for-profit approach”. The Department of Justice will transfer responsibility for the system to the Department of Children. 

While this long-overdue announcement has been widely celebrated, broader questions remain about what the new system will look like. Will the Irish government learn from the failings of Direct Provision and create a system that safeguards asylum seekers' human rights and helps foster integration into their new home? This may be a chance for Ireland to extend its welcoming reputation to everyone arriving on its shores.

Shannon is an LLB Law with Politics graduate from Queen's University Belfast. Since graduating she has worked for Allen & Overy LLP, where she sits on the Pro Bono Committee. As the Project Coordinator for A&O's Pro Bono partnership with the AIRE Centre, she facilitates a letter writing initiative in order to promote awareness of legal rights and assist people in vulnerable circumstances to assert those rights. 

LinkedIn