Mr. Greg Straton:

I thank the committee for the invitation to appear before it this evening. SPIRASI is the national centre for the rehabilitation of survivors of torture. Annually, we provide this service to almost 600 survivors of torture and in 2013, we assisted 18% of all adults resident in direct provision. SPIRASI's services include the provision of medical-legal reports to the protection process, multidisciplinary assessments of survivors of torture, therapeutic interventions, psycho-social support, outreach and early identification, language and vocational training and training to third parties on survivors of torture. We provide training to the likes of the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the Refugee Legal Service.
The areas in respect of which the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions has sought input are the Reception and Integration Agency and how it functions, the extension of the remit of the Office of the Ombudsman to include several areas and making the Freedom of Information Acts fully applicable in all respects to some other areas.
The first area is the Reception and Integration Agency, RIA, and how it functions. The RIA is highly effective in meeting its objectives, namely, the provision of accommodation to asylum seekers. The RIA has stated that it has accommodated over 50,000 people and about 80% of all asylum seekers will take up the offer of direct provision. The RIA is generally quite good at managing its occupancy levels in terms of the various fluctuations that can take place in respect of people seeking protection.
However, protection seekers make an application to the Department of Justice and Equality, which is the same Department the RIA is under. We would argue that this positioning can lead to a conflict of interest, perceived or otherwise, arising from the same Department being responsible for both accommodating and deciding on the fate of an individual. This connection can often give those charged with accommodating protection seekers enormous power, again perceived or otherwise. I am not saying they have this power but there is the perception that they have it. It may be better to change the location of the agency. Perhaps the Department of Social Protection or another Department or agency could take over that responsibility. This would remove that particular issue.
The RIA has three objectives that are stated on its website as follows. They are to accommodate asylum seekers, which it is very effective at doing; to co-ordinate the provision of services to asylum seekers in RIA accommodation; and to facilitate the voluntary return home of destitute nationals from certain EU states and to accommodate suspected victims of human trafficking pending a determination of their case and during the 60-day recovery and reflection period. Overall, I have an issue with the fact that the RIA does not provide an overarching aim. This could be informed by the long-term outcomes of the protection process, i.e., integration or return. The RIA may be more effective if it was informed by the UNHCR's note on the integration of refugees in the European Union , which states that:

Reception policies are more effective if they are guided by the potential longer-term outcomes of the process: the integration of asylum-seekers who are ultimately recognized as refugees or beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, and sustainable return and re-integration of those whose claims are unsuccessful.

That would be a far better aim for the agency. In respect of its own objectives, as has already been stated above, the RIA is very effective in the implementation of the first objective. However in terms of the second objective, namely the co-ordination of services, we see on a daily basis that apart from the inter-agency committee which it convenes, it is far less effective. This may well be because it has limited influence over the provision of health and education services which are largely decided by those individual Departments.

In view of the fact that we are not engaged in the activities relating to the third objective, we are not going to comment on it.

While RIA is a very effective accommodation provider, our experience is that it is not very good at recognising the vulnerability of those people in its care. It seems not to take fully into consideration the needs of individuals at the centre of the decisions it makes, including non-consultation on transfers, ensuring the continuity of medical support following dispersal and the impact of long-term accommodation in non-self-catering accommodation on family life. On a daily basis, we see the impact of the non-continuity of medical support on asylum seekers. People who arrive at the reception centre in Balseskin are screened for public health reasons but the results of those screenings are not shared with GPs when individuals are transferred to Limerick, Kerry or wherever. That is a particular issue, especially in view of the current crisis relating to Ebola.

On purpose-built accommodation, it is highly likely that people seeking protection in Ireland is a phenomenon that will not disappear. Given this fact and in light of the vast amount of resources - as Ms McHugh has outlined - that have been paid to private companies to provide accommodation, RIA should by now have at least considered the possibility of constructing purpose-built reception and accommodation facilities. At present, the State's only reception centre at Balseskin - years after its establishment - comprises mainly temporary-style accommodation which is isolated and which could not, from our perspective, be considered a place of safety and well-being. The State's reception centre should be made a permanent structure within a community. In light of the millions of euro paid to private companies to date, investment in State-owned, purpose-built accommodation should be considered. We acknowledge that there are fluctuations in the number of people seeking protection but there is a baseline number of individuals entering the State and we should at least be providing such accommodation for them. The accommodation in Athlone is still in the form of mobile homes. Given the advanced stage we have reached in the context of people seeking protection in the State, this is no longer acceptable.

We are of the view that the remit of the Ombudsman should be extended to include the direct provision system and we would welcome such a move. At present, complaints relating to direct provision are processed by RIA, as outlined in its house rules and procedures. There is an obvious challenge in this process in terms of maintaining the integrity of such a complaints system, particularly when it largely requires that the protection seeker, who is in a vulnerable and often powerless position, is obliged to make a complaint directly to the manager of the accommodation centre or to the RIA, which comes under the remit of the Department charged with making decisions on protection cases. There is a great deal of fear on the part of protection seekers because they believe that making complaints will result in localised retribution by accommodation managers or systematic retribution, either in the form of transfer or, worse, a perceived impact on the case for protection. We are talking here about people making complaints against those who will decide what type of shower gel will be available in a particular month. That can be a very difficult position in which to find oneself. In short, the system is ridiculous.

Making an independent entity such as the Ombudsman responsible for complaints would give rise to multiple benefits. The first of these would be removal of the fear experienced by protection seekers making complaints, which is extremely important. The second would be a reduction of risk on the part of the RIA. By providing for independent oversight, the RIA could ensure that any abuses that occur while it is responsible for protection seekers will have an effective avenue to be addressed. I manage a small NGO and I always welcome as much oversight as possible in the context of reducing the risk relating to it. I cannot understand why the RIA wants to continue to accept the risk of providing for people without the presence of any independent oversight.

The third benefit would be that the involvement of the Ombudsman would give protection seekers a greater level of confidence in the RIA, as an agency, seeking to protect their interests and not the interests of private accommodation centre managers. There is a concern that the RIA looks after the person or entity who has the contract rather than the people who are meant to be provided for. The fourth benefit is that the involvement of the Ombudsman would ultimately assist in driving improvements in the provision of accommodation to protection seekers. The involvement of the Ombudsman in the complaints process for direct provision users is long overdue. In addition, SPIRASI would also see an obvious role for HIQA in the process of inspecting accommodation centres where a similar challenge is evident.

On the appeals system and the statutory jurisdiction the Ombudsman has with both Revenue and the Department of Social Protection, central to the delays in the current protection process is the backlog of judicial reviews before the High Court. Judicial reviews are normally taken to the High Court on the basis of administrative errors or flaws in the decision-making process. Since it has been reformed, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal has had far fewer cases against it taken to the High Court. This perhaps shows that the quality of decision making has improved.

Ireland is unique in allowing the access to the courts to which I refer as a mechanism for reviewing protection decisions. If the Office of the Ombudsman can be used to seek a review of a protection decision in a faster and more efficient way and if this reduced the lengthy delays relating to the process as it stands, then we should move in that direction. However, the right to seek a judicial review should not be removed and the choice to pursue either option should reside with the protection seeker and his or her legal representatives. Asylum law and processes can be very complex and this should be taken fully into account in any move to establish such a service within the Office of the Ombudsman. In addition, the consideration of cases currently awaiting hearing before the High Court may be a way of providing some form of remedy for those already in the system. However, we are not sure how this might work from a legal standpoint.

As far as we understand, the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, INIS, is responsible for the RIA. Oversight by the Ombudsman into the process of tendering and contracting for the direct provision system by the RIA would be most welcome. There are concerns regarding this process and the lack of jurisdiction and oversight available. We also acknowledge the challenges - such as episodic fluctuations - inherent in the provision of direct provision on the procurement process.

The use of the direct provision system as a tool of asylum policy by INIS is another area of concern. It was stated by the previous Minister for Justice that "The Direct Provision system remains a key pillar of the State's asylum and immigration system and I have no plans to end it". The use of the direct provision system by INIS as a push factor to those seeking international protection is abhorrent. The use of the system by INIS in such a manner requires some form of policy oversight. However, we are not sure if the remit of the Ombudsman can be extended into this area.

We are aware that although the Department of Justice and Equality is covered under the Freedom of Information Acts, the relevant agencies are not fully held to account under this legislation and, therefore, there are difficulties in respect of obtaining information relating to direct provision, RIA, GNIB, INIS, etc. We would support the extension of the freedom of information legislation to cover the latter but we would include the caution that the identity of protection seekers is fully protected when requests are made and that they should receive assistance, especially in terms of language services, when accessing their records. Some 80% of the people who use our service do not have English as their first language. In my opinion, language is a major consideration when such individuals make freedom of information requests. An extension of the freedom of information legislation of the type to which I refer would increase both the level of oversight into the administration of these areas of concern and the level of accountability of officials in the RIA, GNIB, INIS and other bodies supplying goods and services to protection seekers.