Mr. Nick Henderson:

I thank the committee for the invitation to make a presentation. The Irish Refugee Council is a charity that helps people seeking asylum. We give information, provide early legal advice, help people to access employment and education, help young people and support people to leave direct provision through our housing project. We also advocate for improvements in the asylum process.

It has been a consistent call of the Irish Refugee Council that direct provision should end. Moreover, politicians across the spectrum, international bodies, other non-governmental organisations, NGOs, and, most importantly, people living in direct provision have called for it to end. There are countless articles, reports and testimonies on what is wrong with this system. The fact that Geoffrey Shannon, the special rapporteur on child protection, has called on Ireland to abolish direct provision and that the Ombudsman, as recently as yesterday, has said it is not a suitable long-term accommodation for those waiting on an asylum claim should alone be enough to bring about wholesale and radical change. Direct provision is already, unfortunately, a chapter in Ireland’s long and dark history of institutional living.

We believe the system has worsened in recent months, particularly in the context of emergency centres. A grave concern we have is that the short-term emergency situation will become entrenched, which will make the implementation of change harder. If direct provision ends, something will have to take its place. The bottom lines of a new system should include own-door accommodation and the opportunities to cook for oneself, live in a community and to work. We believe this model could be agreed upon more easily than others think. On foot of discussions with the Reception and Integration Agency, RIA, I believe it is open to real change. However, the bigger challenge lies in how the new model could be delivered. We are very doubtful that existing providers or the current procurement process being rolled out over 2019 can deliver that model. The system is broken and it is costing too much for too little. We know that it must change, so how do we get to a new system?

First, we should consider the accommodation of people seeking asylum as a housing issue. That is not to draw from existing funds for housing but to take a housing policy approach. The Department of Justice and Equality is not equipped to design that policy and the responsibility should not lie with that Department.

Second, we should use the existing budget more strategically. The Government has built only three accommodation centres in 18 years. The majority of existing centres were originally designed for other purposes. The State should procure fit-for-purpose accommodation to meet particular needs. We believe this will be a cost saver in the long term. Aidan O’Driscoll, Director General of the Department of Justice and Equality, told this committee a few weeks ago that the spend on direct provision in 2019 will likely reach €95 million to €100 million. In 18 years, over €1.2 billion has been paid to private providers of accommodation. Spending money on providing people with asylum is a good thing, but it should be done strategically to the benefit of people in that system and the public.

Third, and linked to this, a fundamental criticism of the system so far has been that it has been reliant on for-profit actors. Private providers are not social workers or public servants. They cannot and are not meeting the complex social needs of the people living in their centres. That is a public obligation on the State. There are many housing bodies in Ireland that are non-profit, work to a particular mission and have strengths and expertise. We believe those bodies could be best placed to provide accommodation. The procurement process has to change for this to happen, with longer lead-in times, longer contracts, funding for capital and conversion costs and a reduction in the number of people a provider must accommodate. Current procurement models require a provider to accommodate 50 or more people. The approved housing bodies, AHBs, tell us that this risks perpetuating the model of congregated living and it is difficult to procure buildings of this size.

Fourth, direct provision is not just about the bricks and mortar. We can reduce delays in the system by giving resources to decision makers and increase legal aid at pre-decision stage so applications are better prepared. The right to work should be broader and we should allow for integration from day one. This model has been developed successfully in Scotland.

Fifth, there must be greater engagement on this issue by all Departments. This was emphasised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, head of office, Enda O'Neill, last week. Moreover, the Department of Justice and Equality could work better internally. The International Protection Office, IPO, the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, IPAT, the Legal Aid Board, the Reception and Integration Agency, the ministerial decisions unit, MDU, of the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service, INIS, are all under the remit of the Department but they could work better. To give an example, the Legal Aid Board is not supported enough to ensure everyone has a well prepared application to the International Protection Office. This means the International Protection Appeals Tribunal has to deal with more complicated appeals. If somebody is recognised as a refugee, there are long delays in issuing the declaration of refugee status by the ministerial decisions unit. This means that people spend longer in the direct provision system and the system becomes more overcrowded, which puts pressure on the Reception and Integration Agency and leads to people being accommodated in emergency centres. There are not enough appointments issued by the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service for people to get a residency card.

At each step, there are hurdles requiring intensive interventions and supports. It does not have to be this difficult, but systemic change is key. The written submission we will provide to the committee will go into more detail on what I have said.