The direct provision framework has long been a blot on our nation’s moral record, facing condemnation from domestic and international human rights bodies. Initially conceived as a stopgap measure in 2000, it soon became entrenched. It was supposed to ensure asylum seekers had lodging and food while their claims were assessed, however, it devolved into a confounding and open-ended institutionalised system that often left claimants in limbo for years in inadequate housing.
In February 2021, the government at last disclosed its plans to abolish the system, launching a white paper to construct a new International Protection Support Service. The promise was to create a “new, persistent, expert, and claimant-focused accommodation and support system for those seeking internationally protected status, allowing the nation to meet our international obligations currently and in future”.
Central to this pledge was a guarantee that claimants would inhabit a reception and integration centre for only four months before being relocated to the wider community. Four strategies were to be executed. The construction, purchase or lease of houses and flats for families and those at risk was planned. Single individuals were to be housed in remodelled unused structures or through a room-rental scheme.
Precisely one year on, Russia initiated an invasion of Ukraine. Over the subsequent two years, the authorities were tasked with finding housing for 75,000 Ukrainian refugees and 25,000 international protection applicants. This put immense pressure on the already strained existing system, designed to accommodate only 3,000 to 4,000 applicants annually.
The Ukrainian conflict will eventually cease, and recent initiatives—like reducing the availability of state accommodation and monetary assistance—have led to a drop in arrivals from Ukraine. However, underlying migratory trends contributing to a rise in non-Ukrainian applications are likely to persist.
In the week leading up to Easter, the government quietly and, somewhat predictably, reneged on its 2021 commitment when it released its extensive accommodation strategy for international protection applicants. It seems there’s never a bad time to gloss over a failed promise.
The latest strategy anticipates that Ireland will receive asylum requests from 13,000 to 16,000 individuals annually for the four years ahead. With this in mind, government plans are underway to construct and run reception and integration facilities capable of accommodating 14,000 individuals. An intent to shift away from privately rented lodgings and towards state-owned facilities is also being highlighted. The modification of commercial buildings forms part of this scheme, as well as a commitment to not use inappropriate sites such as remote town’s “last hotel”. This preferably acknowledges a stiffened public sentiment towards immigrants, fuelled partially, since 2021, by anti-immigration factions.
The duration of asylum seekers’ stay in the new centres remains unspecified; however, it is clear that the four-month stay proposed in the 2021 strategy is now obsolete. The renewed strategy pivots around “an extensive, primary state-owned supply that offers emergency, short-term, and long-term accommodation solutions, along with facilities for vulnerable applicants”.
The emphasis here is on the long-term. The plan does not define what this entails, but implies that the facilities at reception and integration centres would be accessible to asylum seekers for at least half a year. Post this period, the asylum seekers would be housed in accommodation centres until they complete the protection process, which could extend to two to three years. For those who gain the right to reside in Ireland, the accommodation centres could be their home for an added year.
This does resemble direct provision rebranded, with the state managing the centres. The government’s stance, though arguably justifiable, is that this deviation from its 2021 pledge to scrap Direct Provision is a direct result of uncontrollable circumstances. Nonetheless, this isn’t entirely truthful. Despite the housing crisis that affects the asylum seeker accommodation issue falling within its control, the government has yet to find a solution.
Here’s a gentle reminder of what a lengthy direct provision stay means for an asylum seeker, as per the 2017 report of the Working Group on the International Protection Process. The protracted period they spent was a major concern for asylum seekers.
The report suggests that numerous issues are either initiated or worsened by the current situation, including deprivation of personal autonomy over fundamental aspects of day-to-day living like cooking, cleaning, and shopping. It magnifies the encroachment on privacy, feelings of seclusion and monotony, and the repercussions of inability to be self-reliant or to support their families, thereby contributing significantly to society. Additionally, it escalates the adverse effects endured by asylum seekers’ children who are born and spend their early years in an institutional environment. It adversely impacts their parenting abilities and hampers a normal family life. It results not only in the loss of skills and fostering dependency but also negatively affects physical, emotional, and mental health. No wonder, it wasn’t surprising when the Government decided to make its announcement on the past Thursday.
[Does the presence of asylum seekers affect the economy positively? Yes, provided they are permitted to work]