Ms Fiona Finn:

Senator Black referred to the patchwork nature of the system and Sylva Tukula. What happened to Sylva Tukula was appalling. It is emblematic of the institutionalised nature of direct provision. It is that whole process of othering and the dehumanising impact that direct provision has. Sadly, when Ms Tukula died, it just became a function. There were certain procedures that had to be followed so they were going to follow them without ever thinking that she might have a family. Family is much broader than having immediate next of kin. That is a direct result of institutionalisation and how we treat protection applicants.

On the patchwork nature of the system, I agree with the Senator. There are a lot of services available in direct provision and there are a lot of agencies involved in the provision of reception. What is required is oversight, like a refugee advisory body. It was recommended in McMahon and was also in the original Refugee Act 1996. The idea is that there would be some level of oversight and co-ordination.

If we go from centre to centre, we see that Tusla is very active in a particular area and the services provided for children are very good but those services do not exist somewhere else. There is no co-ordination. The idea of establishing an advisory board to oversee all aspects and elements of the protection process, including the determination process and the services provided, is absolutely required. Then we would have a more co-ordinated response and not the ad hocpatchwork response that we have throughout the country.