Mr. Stephen Ng'ang'a:

I thank committee members for inviting me. I will add to the introduction by saying I am an asylum seeker and have been living in the system for almost eight years. Two of my daughters were born in the asylum centre, the eldest of whom is eight years old. Therefore, I speak from experience and my own view of what should be done. I am involved with a group of asylum seekers from centres all over the country who came together to bring to the fore direct provision issues that were not right.

The complaints mechanism in direct provision centres is tailored to suit the Reception and Integration Agency, RIA, and the contracted service providers. Asylum seekers have been left out of the process. To lodge a complaint, one must first speak to the centre manager who might very well be the subject of the complaint. In other words, one may be obliged to complain to the person responsible for the source of the complaint. The centre manager then writes a report for the RIA, but he or she may omit crucial facts and details if said complaint reflects badly on that individual or his or her employer. My point is that the RIA can be misinformed about the situation from the beginning of the process and may thus act with a sense of favouritism towards the direct provision centres and their managers. The direct provision system is a commercial business and, like any such business, it is unlikely a manager will write a bad report on his or her own company. That is how complaints made by asylum seekers do not get further and end up being sidelined.

It has been suggested third parties, organisations such as Doras Luimní, should mediate in these matters. The idea is an asylum seeker can say his or her complaints have not been addressed and ask the organisation to mediate. In reality, however, letters may be written by social workers and the like, but the RIA does not do anything about them. It knows that the complaints process does not go any further and thus that it is protected by the system. I commend some of the groups that act as mediators, but there is no clear legislation obliging the RIA to listen to mediators. The system depends on the good will of non-governmental organisations, NGOs.

I wish to raise a serious point. Most asylum seekers come from malfunctioning states and political systems; therefore, it is very disturbing when, having made what one believes is a legitimate complaint, the Garda suddenly becomes involved. This is done to intimidate asylum seekers and make them feel the complaint has been quashed. Sometimes centre managers say they will inform the RIA of a complaint, but many asylum seekers infer that this is a way of saying they might be transferred from the centre for complaining. All of this happens swiftly. Recently an asylum seeker complained about the RIA and so on and gardaí were called to evict him from the hostel - I saw this happen. Members of the Garda must have other jobs to do - surely it is not the job of gardaí to compensate for the RIA's failure to address issues.

Protests have sprung up recently in centres across Ireland, of which I am sure the committee is aware. These protests have occurred because the complaints mechanism has failed. Asylum seekers know that if they complain to a centre manager or the RIA, they will not be heard; therefore, they protest in order to air their grievances publicly. I commend asylum seekers for their courage in protesting publicly to draw attention to grievances that the RIA and the like will not address. The RIA always acts as the godfather; it has ties to the Department of Justice and Equality which has the details of each asylum seeker's case. Asylum seekers fear that the RIA informs the Department about their activities and complaints and influences the outcome of cases in an unjust way.

The way asylum seekers are controlled in direct provision centres is degrading to human dignity. As there are closed-circuit television, CCTV, cameras everywhere, it is impossible to move without being watched. It is a case of State control over the lives of asylum seekers. Most asylum seekers liken the direct provision system to an open prison because one must sign in every time one enters a centre and some centres require asylum seekers to sign in two or three times a day. Do committee members believe one can make a home in such circumstances? Imagine having to sign in every day in one's own home - it would be like a prison. I ask committee members to take note of this issue.

The RIA receives complaints, but it is not monitored independently. I recommend that it be moved to a different Department - perhaps the housing section of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

There are strong connections between the RIA and the Department of Justice and Equality. People will always distrust the RIA. They will never agree that their complaints are being taken seriously by the RIA.

I would also like to see an independent annual report about complaints, with someone independent going into the direct provision centres. Perhaps that person would be from the Office of the Ombudsman. I suggest also that the Office of the Ombudsman be given the remit to handle complaints in the direct provision centres because it is independent and impartial.