Ms Sue Conlan:

I thank the Chairman for affording us the opportunity to address the joint committee. As he noted, members have received a copy of the submission Mr. Ng'ang'a and I prepared. We will concentrate on two elements of the system of direct provision, namely, inspections and complaints. As noted in the submission, nothing in the document should be taken as an indication that the Irish Refugee Council supports the direct provision system. We are firmly of the view that the system is fundamentally flawed and, as a form of institutionalised living, needs to be replaced by a reception system that complies with human rights obligations. In our submission we draw out some evidence about the systems of inspections and complaints as they operate. Inspections and complaints need to be part of any reception system, whether it be the system with which members are familiar or a new one that replaces it.

I will speak a little about inspections, after which Mr. Ng'ang'a will speak about complaints. We will keep our opening comments brief to allow time for members to ask questions or make comments.

The mandate that led to the inception of the direct provision system arises from a Government decision on 9 November 1999. I propose to refer to the decision as I am surprised by the number of people who are not aware that it established the direct provision system. It provided for the immediate establishment of a central directorate "to deal with matters relating to the dispersal of asylum seekers throughout the country and preparation of plans for a system of direct provision of housing, health needs, etc." Each Department was instructed to nominate a representative to the new unit. This decision was a statement of the then Government's policy establishing a system of direct provision to deal with the varied needs of people who entered the international protection or asylum system in Ireland. The Government did not indicate anywhere in this decision the format the direct provision system should take, nor did not make any decision requiring that the system be a form of institutionalised living. When we speak, therefore, about the State having responsibility to provide directly for the needs of people seeking asylum, this does not mean that we are speaking about the current model of direct provision.

I was alerted today to something even more remarkable than the misunderstanding of what State provision for asylum seekers means. I came across an e-mail from a principal officer in the then Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, dated 10 December 1999. Before referring to this correspondence, I am sure members are aware that the weekly allowance for asylum seekers is set at €19.10 per adult and €9.60 per child.