Ms Karen McHugh:

There are four direct provision centres in the Limerick region, comprising the two in the city, the Knockalisheen centre on the border with County Clare and the Mount Trenchard facility near Foynes. We were previously working in all four centres but were recently excluded from the Mount Trenchard facility. We have weekly access to and contact with all residents in the other three centres.

The system of direct provision was established in 1999 and came into force in 2000 without any legislative basis whatsoever.

It was intended as a temporary measure to house asylum seekers for a period of six months at most. At present, there are 34 centres nationwide of which seven are State-run, while all the others are privately-run. Deputy Kirk asked a question earlier about the numbers and the latest statistics from the Reception and Integration Agency are from June 2014 and indicate that 4,324 people are living in direct provision, of whom 1,529 are children.
As for some issues in respect of direct provision in general, more than 40% of residents are single people. As members are aware, asylum seekers obviously are not allowed to work, unlike the position in most other European countries. The average length of time in direct provision is four years and 9% of residents have been living in the system for more than seven years. Obviously, we believe these are totally unsuitable and dehumanising conditions in which to have people live. Often, they must live in overcrowded situations and earlier the joint committee heard about families living in and sharing one room, which parents will share with their children. In Limerick, we are aware of room sharing but equally of the sharing of dormitories whereby - obviously depending on how many are there at any one time - between eight, 12 or 16 people live in that single physical space. The joint committee has heard about the institutionalisation, whereby the food, meals and buses are at certain times. If one misses any of those, obviously one must wait until the next day for transport or food. What is becoming quite apparent and what we have direct evidence of in the centres in Limerick is rationing and in particular the rationing of toilet rolls, shampoo and soap. I understand that in general, on the first Tuesday of every month, one gets one toilet roll, one bottle of shampoo and one bottle of shower gel, which is quite dehumanising. In addition, recreational space is limited and obviously in certain centres, including one in the Limerick region in particular, the only communal space is the actual canteen. There is no other space in which one can meet and look at television. Otherwise, it is in one's room and these rooms are quite small. Internet access is limited and in some centres, there is absolutely none. Members may think the Internet is a luxury but I imagine that in their roles, it is something that is taken for granted as an everyday necessity, even for hearing news from one's own country or for learning what is happening in the world.
Mr. Greg Straton will cover some of the issues pertaining to mental health and while I also have real concerns about them, I will not deal with the subject. The three areas about which I wish to talk are children, victims of trafficking and private contractors. First, I have just spoken about children and how there are 1,529 children living in direct provision in Ireland. Members are well aware of the allocation of €19.10 per adult and €9.60 per child. While 97% of children in Ireland are entitled to universal child benefit, the 3% who are asylum-seeker children obviously are not so entitled. I read a recent newspaper article stating that the means testing of child benefit would not form part of the most recent budget and that all children are entitled to child benefit. However, this is not true in Ireland, as not all children are entitled to child benefit. In recent months, The Irish Timescarried out quite a lot of intensive research, which members may have read, on conditions in direct provision, as well as on children in direct provision. Social services were alerted to more than 1,500 child protection or welfare concern cases over the past five years. This rate is three or four times higher than the reported rate among the general public. The issues that were investigated by child protection staff included inappropriate sexualised behaviour among children, inability of parents to cope and young children not being supervised. This is because of the institutional nature of direct provision.
One issue about which we are concerned is that the children share bathrooms with unrelated men and women. For example, as the centre in our region is not a specific family centre, it contains families, unrelated males and unrelated females who all live together in one compound. I use the word "compound" because that is how its residents refer to it. It is a former Army barracks and obviously we have many concerns regarding child protection and child safety when those who are related and those who are not all share facilities such as bathrooms in a tight closed space. We also are concerned specifically about poor mental health and how that affects children. Obviously, if people are in receipt of €19.10 or €9.60, children will not be in a position to have swimming lessons, to go to after-school parties or to invite their friends back from school for their birthday parties. They may not even be in a position to go to a birthday party because there is peer pressure, if nothing else, to buy a present or gift if one is going to a party and vice versa. Therefore, it places unnecessary pressures on children when they are living isolated and discriminatory lives. We have ongoing concerns about the food and how it is provided. Members possibly heard from previous speakers about how in most centres, kitchens generally are provided by private contractors or some may be privately run by staff who are not qualified catering staff. International catering companies run many centres in Ireland and we have real concerns, as well as evidence, about the lack of fresh fruit and vegetables, as well as the non-nutritious nature of people's diet.
I referred to child benefit earlier and we also heard about the issue of deportation and how families, including children, also have that fear of deportation hanging over their shoulders. As members are aware, some children who were born in this country and who may have been here for eight years have never been to the country in which their parents were born and what they know as home is Ireland. Consequently, to have an issue like deportation on one's shoulder, when one does not know what is or where is that country, it has a serious psychological effect on children's development. Again, the issue of institutionalisation is about removing the general rights of parents to be a parent. We believe the right to parent is removed from parents who are not in a position to be a role model because self-catering provision is extremely limited. In the Limerick region, it is institutionalised in that one has one's meals at a certain time and parents are not able to cook or to shop and are not in a position to work with their children to make a cake or to clean the kitchen. While some may suggest it is great they are not obliged to do this, it is a basic human right for a parent to be able to be a role model and to teach children how to look at some of these issues when they get older. Obviously, we believe the remit of the Ombudsman for Children should cover children in direct provision, who currently are excluded from that remit. We also have serious concerns in respect of separated young people who live in foster homes. Many of those with whom we have worked are transferred, literally on their 18th birthday, to direct provision adult centres, where they often share rooms whereas on the day before their 18th birthday, they were leaving in a private house in a foster home. We do not believe these young people should be left in a system of fostering for many years without their applications being determined, only for them to be placed subsequently in adult centres.
Another issue to which I wish to refer is trafficking. We believe that direct provision is completely unsuitable for victims of sex trafficking and labour trafficking. It is an institution that is not a safe place for people who have been trafficked to this country on foot of exploitation. Obviously, it leads to further potential sexual exportation in the centres. We have worked with a number of people who are victims of human trafficking and we have an anti-trafficking project in which we work with victims of labour and sex trafficking. In addition, we work directly with women and men who have been trafficked and who are living in Limerick and who we are supporting at present. We also supported some people in their repatriation.

Due to the nature of their trafficking, they returned to the country from which they came because they had no idea where they were going so we supported some men and women to return to what they called home. In respect of placing people in mixed centres, we know it is the same throughout the country because the centres are the same. Victims are placed in mixed male and female centres. There is no privacy and it is totally unsafe in our view. People are at risk from pimps and traffickers identifying where they are.
The Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, GRETA, report by the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings in 2013 urged that Ireland:

review the policy of accommodating suspected victims of trafficking in accommodation centres for asylum seekers and to consider the setting up of specialised shelters for victims of trafficking, with the involvement of NGOs as support providers.

It recommended that victims of all nationalities, be they EU or other, be "housed within a similar type setting, which is separate from the immigration system but rather responds to the abuse they have sustained". We believe that victims of human sex trafficking and labour trafficking should not be placed in direct provision. There are systems and we have identified a safe house in Limerick. There are units for domestic abuse services which we believe are an option. We are not looking at millions of people so we believe it is a better system and there are very good models throughout Europe where people could be housed.
A third area to which I will briefly refer is that of private contractors. As I said at the outset, there are 34 direct provision centres in Ireland, seven of which are State-run. The other centres are run by private individuals. Ireland has paid over €850 million to private contractors for accommodating asylum seekers since 2000. In 2012, €62 million was paid in 2012 while €55 million was paid in 2013. The figure to date is roughly the same. Between €50 million and €60 million is paid to private profit-making businesses to run direct provision centres. Many of these private contractors do not have any direct experience of running a care-type setting. Many of them have previous experience in property development and hotel and bed-and-breakfast management. They are only contracted to provide bed-and-breakfast accommodation and to meet health and safety requirements. There is very little extra that they are required to do apart from providing board and lodgings. The quality of care varies enormously. We heard earlier and we know from our experience that quality of care is very varied throughout the country. At least five of the larger firms have their accounts offshore in jurisdictions like the British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Man. I will not say any more. I am just posing that as something for the committee to think about. Many of the contractors own multiple direct provision centres with some having received over €100 million in State funding for accommodation services. The majority of them do not have specific training in social care. It is purely provision of accommodation so the requirements to provide direct provision do not go beyond accommodation and health and safety. Some contractors have moved to unlimited company status and, therefore, have no obligation to publish account information. We would call for independent inspections, which have been raised earlier. I will not go into further detail as it has been covered but we firmly believe that there should be some independence and audit of direct provision centres and contracts. There should be freedom of information in terms of who owns and runs the centres and the accounts. We know from some of the centres that the profits are quite high and we know that some are not meeting their contractual arrangements. We would question how the tendering takes place and how it is reviewed. The committee members are welcome to ask any questions.