Dr. Liam Thornton:

I thank the Chairman and the committee members. I am a lecturer in law at UCD Sutherland School of Law. I thank the committee for inviting me here and giving me the opportunity to discuss Ireland's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the system of direct provision for asylum seekers in Ireland.
The UN Human Rights Committee has made clear, in its general comment No. 15 on the rights of aliens and general comment No. 31 on the nature of state obligations, that asylum seekers enjoy all the same rights under the ICCPR as nationals. As members have had the benefit of my full submission I shall speak briefly on some of the points. Before outlining some of my key concerns it might be useful if I briefly summarise what direct provision is for the committee.
Direct provision is the system utilised in Ireland to provide meals and accommodation to those seeking refugee status, subsidiary protection or leave to remain in Ireland. Asylum seekers are only entitled to a direct provision allowance of €19.10 per adult and €9.60 per child per week and the rates have remained the same since 2000. Asylum seekers are legislatively prohibited from working on pain of criminal conviction and possible imprisonment. Asylum seekers are entitled to a medical card. Children of asylum seekers and asylum seeking children are entitled to education up to leaving certificate level. There is no compulsion on asylum seekers to remain in direct provision accommodation but if they leave, their direct provision payments of €19.10 or €9.60 per week will be withdrawn.
The committee has asked me to look at the right to equality, the right to private and family life, the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment and the system of direct provision. All human rights are interdependent and indivisible in nature. A violation of economic, social or cultural rights can lead to violations of civil and political rights, in particular rights under the ICCPR. Asylum seekers in Ireland live in a system of near cashlessness for years on end. Generally, asylum seekers are unable to cook their own food or decide what children should have for breakfast, lunch or dinner. Children must share rooms with adult relatives. The house rules provide accommodation centre managers with significant levels of control over everyday aspects of the lives of asylum seekers. I argue that the level of social control that asylum seekers are subjected to goes beyond any other type of institution whose purpose is the social care of asylum seekers.
The numbers in direct provision and the length of time people remain in direct provision continues to be a matter of concern. Over 86% of all asylum seekers have been in direct provision for 12 months or longer, over 15% of all individuals in direct provision have been there for over seven years, 43% of individuals in direct provision have been in such accommodation for five years. Some 1,666 people, or just over 38% of all those in direct provision centres, are children. I ask the committee members to consider the extent to which prolonged cashlessness, coupled with significant intrusion in private and family life, could be seen as significant violations of the right to equality, the right to respect for private and family life and inhuman and degrading treatment under the ICCPR. I must also point out that there is no legislative basis for direct provision, rather it is run on an administrative basis. From freedom of information documentation that I have had access to I am concerned that the system does not comply with the rule of law.
The human rights committee is responsible for assessing Ireland's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It will also be aware of Ireland's other obligations, in particular under the international Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has made clear in general comment No. 19 on the right to social security which states: "asylum-seekers, and other disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups, should enjoy equal treatment in access to non-contributory social security schemes". There are now more people in direct provision in Ireland than in prison here. The system of direct provision is inhuman and degrading and violates the right to private and family life. Any system that replaces direct provision must ensure that human dignity and human rights are of central importance and that the rights of all of those who seek asylum are respected, protected and vindicated.
The final point that I shall address is the complaints mechanism. The human rights committee has raised issues with the mechanism in its list of issues. The complaints mechanism in place lack independence and there is no form of independent review or oversight of this internal complaints mechanism. Part 4 of the house rules and procedures for asylum seekers in direct provision outlines the complaints procedure in place, and also issues relating to standards of the accommodation that asylum seekers can expect and what the appropriate behaviour of residents should be.
The Government has insisted that the internal complaints mechanism is adequate. Due to sustained media coverage, inspection reports for direct provision accommodation centres have been released for all to access.Despite recommendations by Dr Geoffrey Shannon, the Free Legal Advice Centres, the Irish Refugee Council, NASC, the Irish Immigrant Support Centre that is based in Cork, that HIQA be responsible for independent inspections and complaints mechanisms, they have not been followed. A transparent complaints mechanism, independent of the Reception and Integration Agency, needs to be established. The issue has been highlighted in the list of issues and is something that the State needs to be aware of and have a response to for the human rights committee.
In summation, I believe that the system of direct provision violates a number of core rights, in particular the right to private and family life. I believe, in certain circumstances, the standard of accommodation and longevity of an asylum seeker's stay in direct provision could potentially be inhuman and degrading. Also, it fundamentally violates the right to equality under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That is my core message that I ask the committee to consider. I am happy to answer any questions members have on direct provision and Ireland's obligations under the ICCPR.