Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will hear presentations by four agencies involved in the provision of services for immigrants and those seeking asylum, protection or residency in Ireland. We will hear from the Anti-Deportation Agency, the Irish Refugee Council, Doras Luimní and Spiritan Asylum Services Initiative, SPIRASI. We have received correspondence from the Minister of State responsibility for new communities, culture and equality, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, who states that after the independent working group has been formally put together and launched, he will come before the committee to give evidence and take questions. I am sure senior officials from relevant Departments and agencies will do likewise. I make it clear that we will have the Minister of State before us in due course, although we had hoped to have him here today.

We have agreed that he will come before us once these steps have been taken.
On behalf of members, I warmly welcome viewers tuning into the meeting on Oireachtas television, a new dedicated parliamentary channel that was launched last month. This will be the first live broadcast of the Joint Committee on Public Oversight and Petitions. With such an important issue on our agenda, we hope all those watching at home will find the discussion and debate informative.
I remind all those present, including members, people in the Visitors Gallery and members of the media that mobile phones and BlackBerry devices must be switched off or switched to flight or safe mode because they interfere with the broadcasting system, even when left in silent mode. I have been guilty of causing interference with the broadcasting system on several occasions.
I welcome Ms Sue Conlan, chief executive officer of the Irish Refugee Council, who will make a presentation on the council, the challenges it faces and its experience in direct provision. She is accompanied by Mr. Stephen Ng'ang'a. I welcome both guests and thank them for forwarding the presentation which has been circulated to members.
By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence the give to the committee. If they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.
I invite Ms Conlan to make her presentation.

Ms Sue Conlan:

I thank the Chairman for affording us the opportunity to address the joint committee. As he noted, members have received a copy of the submission Mr. Ng'ang'a and I prepared. We will concentrate on two elements of the system of direct provision, namely, inspections and complaints. As noted in the submission, nothing in the document should be taken as an indication that the Irish Refugee Council supports the direct provision system. We are firmly of the view that the system is fundamentally flawed and, as a form of institutionalised living, needs to be replaced by a reception system that complies with human rights obligations. In our submission we draw out some evidence about the systems of inspections and complaints as they operate. Inspections and complaints need to be part of any reception system, whether it be the system with which members are familiar or a new one that replaces it.

I will speak a little about inspections, after which Mr. Ng'ang'a will speak about complaints. We will keep our opening comments brief to allow time for members to ask questions or make comments.

The mandate that led to the inception of the direct provision system arises from a Government decision on 9 November 1999. I propose to refer to the decision as I am surprised by the number of people who are not aware that it established the direct provision system. It provided for the immediate establishment of a central directorate "to deal with matters relating to the dispersal of asylum seekers throughout the country and preparation of plans for a system of direct provision of housing, health needs, etc." Each Department was instructed to nominate a representative to the new unit. This decision was a statement of the then Government's policy establishing a system of direct provision to deal with the varied needs of people who entered the international protection or asylum system in Ireland. The Government did not indicate anywhere in this decision the format the direct provision system should take, nor did not make any decision requiring that the system be a form of institutionalised living. When we speak, therefore, about the State having responsibility to provide directly for the needs of people seeking asylum, this does not mean that we are speaking about the current model of direct provision.

I was alerted today to something even more remarkable than the misunderstanding of what State provision for asylum seekers means. I came across an e-mail from a principal officer in the then Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, dated 10 December 1999. Before referring to this correspondence, I am sure members are aware that the weekly allowance for asylum seekers is set at €19.10 per adult and €9.60 per child.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask Ms Conlan not to identify any individual when referring to the correspondence.

Ms Sue Conlan:

That is no problem. I had not intended to identify anyone.

As members are aware, the allowances for adults and children have not changed since April 2000 when the system was introduced. The origin of the allowances is the e-mail to which I referred in which the principal officer in question states that, having considered the matter, he had concluded that "payments to asylum seekers in full board or under direct provision" should be made at the following levels, £15 per week for adults and £7.50 per week for children. When Ireland entered the eurozone, these rates were converted to €19.10 and €9.60, respectively. It is clear, therefore, that the allowances were determined not by a Government decision that was subject to Oireachtas oversight but by a senior civil servant in a Department. As I stated, the then Government did not make a decision providing that direct provision should be institutionalised living. The fundamental flaw in the system is the lack of parliamentary oversight and Government accountability for the way in which the direct provision system has been allowed to develop.

I will address the issue of inspections. The various centres, of which there are 34 located in 16 counties, are inspected by the Reception and Integration Agency and a private company, QTS, about which we know virtually nothing. While I have not been able to find any information on the company, from looking at the two gentlemen opposite, it seems to be based in Galway. Perhaps they have been able to find out more about it than we have.

A number of concerns arise about the current inspections regime, the first of which relates to its remit. While the physical environment of the centres is inspected, no assessment is made of the suitability of accommodation, for example, whether dormitory style accommodation is appropriate or whether families are living in overcrowded conditions contrary to housing law. The remit of the inspections regime is, therefore, limited. In addition, it does not include a requirement to speak to residents in the direct provision system, certainly not in confidence. Many residents will not have confidence to speak in front of management because of the implications of being seen to be critical of an aspect of the system or a particular centre. The examination of the physical environment cannot address the reality of the experience of those who live within it.

We also know that food stored off-site cannot be part of the inspection. For example, food for use in Millstreet, County Cork has been stored off-site in the past, which has meant that inspectors entering the facility cannot see the food, some of which is out of date. Furthermore, some of the food provided for residents is labelled in a language that the inspectors cannot understand. For this reason, they are unable to verify if it is appropriate or determine if it is out of date. We have heard about formula milk being provided for babies that is labelled in Polish only. As a result, new mothers have not been able to ascertain how to use the product, for example, what quantities they need to use.

As I indicated, limited information is available on QTS, for example, on how the company secured its contract or its suitability to inspect accommodation that is generally for a varied and diverse community whose members can be exceptionally vulnerable and include victims of torture and children.

Another issues that arises is the level of prior knowledge of inspections enjoyed by management and staff at direct provision centres. While I am not suggesting they have prior knowledge of all inspections, it is clear from speaking to residents of direct provision centres that they know something is afoot when work is done on the physical environment. For example, when a building is given a lick of paint or the place is tidied up, they know a visit by a Minister or other politician is imminent or an inspection is about to take place. This makes it impossible for any assessment of the centre to be accurate. We recommend that a body such as the Health Information and Quality Authority take over inspections and that their remit be extended to cover the suitability of the centres, taking into account the particular vulnerabilities of residents.

The remit of inspections should include a requirement to speak in confidence to residents about matters, including so-called convenience changes that occur before a visit. Impromptu inspections should be carried out at a time when children are present because children of school age are invariably absent from centres when inspections take place, thus minimising the chances of an accurate assessment being made of accommodation and its suitability for them.

Mr. Stephen Ng'ang'a:

I thank committee members for inviting me. I will add to the introduction by saying I am an asylum seeker and have been living in the system for almost eight years. Two of my daughters were born in the asylum centre, the eldest of whom is eight years old. Therefore, I speak from experience and my own view of what should be done. I am involved with a group of asylum seekers from centres all over the country who came together to bring to the fore direct provision issues that were not right.

The complaints mechanism in direct provision centres is tailored to suit the Reception and Integration Agency, RIA, and the contracted service providers. Asylum seekers have been left out of the process. To lodge a complaint, one must first speak to the centre manager who might very well be the subject of the complaint. In other words, one may be obliged to complain to the person responsible for the source of the complaint. The centre manager then writes a report for the RIA, but he or she may omit crucial facts and details if said complaint reflects badly on that individual or his or her employer. My point is that the RIA can be misinformed about the situation from the beginning of the process and may thus act with a sense of favouritism towards the direct provision centres and their managers. The direct provision system is a commercial business and, like any such business, it is unlikely a manager will write a bad report on his or her own company. That is how complaints made by asylum seekers do not get further and end up being sidelined.

It has been suggested third parties, organisations such as Doras Luimní, should mediate in these matters. The idea is an asylum seeker can say his or her complaints have not been addressed and ask the organisation to mediate. In reality, however, letters may be written by social workers and the like, but the RIA does not do anything about them. It knows that the complaints process does not go any further and thus that it is protected by the system. I commend some of the groups that act as mediators, but there is no clear legislation obliging the RIA to listen to mediators. The system depends on the good will of non-governmental organisations, NGOs.

I wish to raise a serious point. Most asylum seekers come from malfunctioning states and political systems; therefore, it is very disturbing when, having made what one believes is a legitimate complaint, the Garda suddenly becomes involved. This is done to intimidate asylum seekers and make them feel the complaint has been quashed. Sometimes centre managers say they will inform the RIA of a complaint, but many asylum seekers infer that this is a way of saying they might be transferred from the centre for complaining. All of this happens swiftly. Recently an asylum seeker complained about the RIA and so on and gardaí were called to evict him from the hostel - I saw this happen. Members of the Garda must have other jobs to do - surely it is not the job of gardaí to compensate for the RIA's failure to address issues.

Protests have sprung up recently in centres across Ireland, of which I am sure the committee is aware. These protests have occurred because the complaints mechanism has failed. Asylum seekers know that if they complain to a centre manager or the RIA, they will not be heard; therefore, they protest in order to air their grievances publicly. I commend asylum seekers for their courage in protesting publicly to draw attention to grievances that the RIA and the like will not address. The RIA always acts as the godfather; it has ties to the Department of Justice and Equality which has the details of each asylum seeker's case. Asylum seekers fear that the RIA informs the Department about their activities and complaints and influences the outcome of cases in an unjust way.

The way asylum seekers are controlled in direct provision centres is degrading to human dignity. As there are closed-circuit television, CCTV, cameras everywhere, it is impossible to move without being watched. It is a case of State control over the lives of asylum seekers. Most asylum seekers liken the direct provision system to an open prison because one must sign in every time one enters a centre and some centres require asylum seekers to sign in two or three times a day. Do committee members believe one can make a home in such circumstances? Imagine having to sign in every day in one's own home - it would be like a prison. I ask committee members to take note of this issue.

The RIA receives complaints, but it is not monitored independently. I recommend that it be moved to a different Department - perhaps the housing section of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

There are strong connections between the RIA and the Department of Justice and Equality. People will always distrust the RIA. They will never agree that their complaints are being taken seriously by the RIA.

I would also like to see an independent annual report about complaints, with someone independent going into the direct provision centres. Perhaps that person would be from the Office of the Ombudsman. I suggest also that the Office of the Ombudsman be given the remit to handle complaints in the direct provision centres because it is independent and impartial.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank both contributors. As there are three other groups, I ask the members to keep their questions and commentary as sharp as possible.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for being late. There is actually a debate on immigration regularisation in the Seanad and it shows the madness of these Houses that the debate on the same issue is happening at the same time. We may be called to vote on that in which case I will have to leave.

I thank the IRC for its input. It is important that we get that input today. Could they outline some of the basic issues that come up? They might put them on the record for us here. If an independent person were to go into any of the direct provision centres, what would be the top four or five issues that would come up around direct provision?

Ms Conlan mentioned the "convenience changes". She might clarify what she means by convenience changes.

What engagement has there been with the Ombudsman on the extension of the remit? Is there any engagement, for example, between the IRC and the RIA, on the complaints mechanism? If the IRC has suggested changes to the method of complaints that can be made, what response has it received from the RIA?

Ms Sue Conlan:

I will deal briefly with the latter question about suggestions to the RIA about the Office of the Ombudsman and the convenience changes. The convenience changes relates to when residents note that there are improvements to a centre which alerts them to the fact that either an inspection is due or there is someone coming in from outside, such as a politician or Minister. It is merely a change that is made for convenience to facilitate a good inspection report. That is what is meant by that.

We individually, and others, have raised the issue of the lack of independence to the complaints system with the RIA but the response on each occasion is that it is robust enough. They will lay out the system that exists. We describe it as a tiered system of complaints where one makes a complaint to the manager and if that is not satisfied, one can go to the RIA. As Mr. Ng'ang'a stated clearly, residents' experience is that it matters little whether one makes that complaint. As a resident, one is reminded that the manager has contact with the RIA. I have seen letters from the RIA that suggest that if one does not comply, "don't forget it is part of the Department of Justice and Equality". I am paraphrasing - that is not literally the wording of it. They have adamantly maintained that, like the direct provision system itself, the complaints system is adequate and one does not need anything else, and also that they have not had alternatives put before them, which is not the truth.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would that be common practice internationally?

Ms Sue Conlon:

We are talking about a form of institutionalised living that is not replicated in every other place. Of course, there are detention facilities in other countries which are even worse than direct provision but at the same time there is independent living in other EU states. It is difficult to always draw parallels with other EU countries and, indeed, other institutions. It is not unusual for a person who is in a position where he or she is seeking protection to be the person who is not believed when a complaint is brought in any system that exists because there is always a default that it must be the person who is there on behalf of the Government or the Department who is probably doing the best he or she can.

I would add that we know that in each centre there exist persons who curry favour with managers and who, therefore, will give information some of which is false. Some fabricated statements have been made during the course of these protests, to the RIA, to the Ministers, to the media, which have made out that some of these protests have not been legitimate and have not had real grievances that they have been addressing. It is a controlled environment, as Mr. Ng'ang'a stated. Whether it exists elsewhere, when there is institutionalised living it allows for a controlled and fearful environment in which there can be consequences of transfer, not necessarily of refusal or deportation. Nevertheless, the latter fear exists in this situation.

Mr. Ng'ang'a would better deal with the other question.

Mr. Stephen Ng'ang'a:

Senator Ó Clochartaigh asked the top issues or complaints people would have with the direct provision system. As he will realise, every time one mentions "direct provision" it gives the connotation of handouts being given.

Of the issues that are addressed in the hostels, food would be a big issue. That is why we call for an end to direct provision. People have no right to choose what they eat. The issues around food would be many, from the way it is prepared to whether it is Halal, and overcooked food. It involves all kinds of issues.

One of the other major issues is about children having no space to live or even to do their assignments. My children do assignments on the floor. If direct provision is really there to provide, it does not meet its remit of provision because it does not even provide space for children to do their homework. It does not even provide a variety of food for the children. These are major issues.

It is a provision system. The children who leave the system after leaving certificate are not even provided with the cost of proceeding with their careers and as one can imagine, there are so many issues there.

If one visits the hostel arrangement, one would see that some live in a place where toilets are shared. Children and families share the same toilets. In 2014, that should not be allowed.

Most of these complaints are legitimate. One cannot be pushed to live in a prison-like condition and expect that there will not be complaints. There will always be complaints. The only response we get is: "This person is a complainer, he is a whiner, let us transfer them." Is that right? I do not think so.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I sincerely thank the Chairman and thank the deputation for being here today because this is terribly important. I will go on the record as saying the system of direct provision is wrong. I will tell the committee why it is wrong. What is the difference between Mr. Ng'ang'a's child who was born in this country and my child? There is no difference.

Mr. Stephen Ng'ang'a:

There is no difference. They are only children.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Ng'ang'a's child is every bit as good as my child and why should his child be discriminated against which is what is happening?

I must declare an interest in this. As the Chairman will be aware, sometimes I am passionate about certain issues. I am passionate about this and I will tell the committee why. I am a close personal friend to persons who live under direct provision and on a weekly basis, I visit these friends who are living in a room. I do not agree with it.

The system is wrong. It is demoralising. One cannot justify why a respectable man, woman or couple who have children should be forced to live in a room for up to ten years while their application is being processed. I would have far more respect for the system if it was to deal with an application, make a decision and state an outcome. That would be fine.

However, it is wrong to leave a person lingering, living in a room under conditions that are, as Mr. Ng'ang'a said, prison-like. These people have not committed a crime. They have done nothing wrong and have come here in the best of good faith. I will be the first to say we do not want Ireland to be an easy place for people to come to and claim benefits. We know that side of the argument. However, the system is wrong and should be reviewed. People’s applications should be dealt with in a swift and timely manner. Every person has only so many years on this earth. No matter where people come from, what colour their skin is or who they are, they deserve to be dealt with in a respectful fashion and no person should be confined to a room until the Government deals with them. Who are we, as legislators, to say, “until we deal with you”? It is wrong.

I have no problem with putting a person into direct provision for six or even 12 months. That would be due process. However, to have people languishing year after year with direct provision as their home is outrageous. I am not being political about this, but I am being personal because I am very close friends with people who are living in these conditions. It is outrageous. I thank the witnesses for coming here today. If some good can come out of it, I would appreciate it because it bothers me an awful lot. What is the difference between the Chairman’s child and the child of a person who is living here ordinarily? There is no difference.

Derek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ms Conlan and Mr. Ng'ang'a to the committee. Their points on inspections and complaints were well made and the arguments were put forward very correctly. I would like to get a better idea of the system as it works and some of its flaws. Ms Conlan, in her role in the Irish Refugee Council would have a greater understanding of which centres have good reputations and which do not. There is a difference in the quality of accommodation in different direct provision centres. Some have good reputations and others do not. Does this come to Ms Conlan’s attention? Do the inspections reflect her knowledge as a person who deals with people across systems? If she knows a centre has a bad reputation, does she see it reflected in the inspection reports? Could she give examples of cases in which there have been tangible consequences for people who have made complaints?

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will allow the witnesses to respond in detail to the questions, and then we will invite our next guests to speak. Anybody who has not had a chance to ask a question can speak after the next guests because the discussion will be around the same subject matter.

Derek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have to attend a parliamentary party meeting at 5 p.m.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is no problem.

Ms Sue Conlan:

The centres that sometimes give less cause for complaints are those in which there is more autonomy. For example, if one is in a chalet as opposed to living in a room on a corridor sharing facilities such as bathrooms, there can be less cause for complaints. Mosney in County Meath is often held up as the best example within that system of institutionalised living. However, there is still a canteen to which people must go. Mount Trenchard in Foynes, County Limerick, is completely unsuitable and is seriously damaging the health of the men there. Some 40% of the residents of Mount Trenchard are victims of torture and are receiving services from SPIRASI, which is coming before the committee this afternoon. Mount Trenchard was a school and provides dormitory style accommodation which is unsuitable for grown men who are attempting to rebuild their lives. Even in Galway, some centres do not have the same level of complaints as those where some recent protests have taken place. This is partly to do with management and how the staff approach it and also the nature of the facility. The management can make the system a little better.

A month or two ago, complaints were made at Mount Trenchard and there was a protest. There was mediation and the owner agreed to deal with issues within a specified period of time. Of the residents who were calmly advocating for change, two were immediately moved, one with a Garda escort, as Mr. Ng'ang'a said, within ten minutes of the meeting ending. I have known of vindictive behaviour in the form of transfers of people who have spoken out, not just on their own behalf but on behalf of others. I have not personally known of anybody’s application suffering. I know of people who have, as Mr. Ng'ang'a said, had the Garda called and been threatened with criminal prosecution when they have attempted to raise a complaint. These are real cases we have known about in the past.

Mr. Stephen Ng'ang'a:

I appreciate Deputy Nolan’s question. It shows direct provision has no standards. If there are good and bad centres, it shows the standards vary, whereas they should be uniform. This is why we call for the abolition of the direct provision system. We should end the system and start all over again, if we must.

Derek Nolan (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are the inspections working?

Ms Sue Conlan:

No, they are not. There was an inspection of Mount Trenchard in March which bears little relationship to the damage that is being done to the men in that type of accommodation centre. In November 2013, there was an inspection of Lissywollen in Athlone, and it did not report on what the residents knew the reality to be. A falsified account was given of what goes on at the centre. This is not to say the inspections never pick up some of the key issues. However, given the limitations of the remit, and given that the inspectors do not speak to the people who know what it is like to live there, they very rarely pick up the reality of the situations.

Mr. Stephen Ng'ang'a:

I have had the privilege of being in a centre where some Government officials came to visit. Only by chance did they see where I live, because I had the guts to invite them to come in and see where I lived. The tendency of the centre managers is to take the inspectors to empty places and newly refurbished or painted rooms, so the inspectors are very limited in what they can see. They tick their check lists as to the rooms and lights, but do not see the functionality of the rooms. The inspections are fraudulent because they do not depict the real picture of what happens in the centres.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If inspections are being rigged, it is totally unacceptable and the committee cannot accept it.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is why today’s meeting is so vital and we are particularly delighted to have asylum seekers who are living in the system here to tell their stories. It is powerful for the committee. Everything we are hearing will feed into our recommendations. The Office of the Ombudsman and Information Commissioner, held by Mr. Peter Tyndall, and previously by Ms Emily O’Reilly, has repeatedly asked for oversight of the asylum seeking process and direct provision centres.

Part of our committee's deliberations is to build up the evidence as to why that should happen and also look at the whole system. I thank Ms Conlon for attending the committee today. We really appreciate her presentation which was extremely helpful to our deliberations.

We will suspend for a moment now to facilitate the entry of our next witnesses.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ms Anne Mulhall from Anti-Deportation Ireland, who will make a presentation on the work and operation of the agency. She will also identify areas where she believes changes can be made to improve the service provided. Ms Mulhall is accompanied by Ms Pako Mokoba and Mr. Gerald Musekiwa. I thank the witnesses for forwarding their presentation which is being circulated to members of the committee.
I must inform the witnesses that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009 they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. The witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given. They are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.
That sounds quite daunting but the witnesses should not worry. I am sure they will be fine. I now invite Ms Mulhall to make her presentation.

Ms Anne Mulhall:

I will briefly introduce the work of Anti-Deportation Ireland, as well as flagging a few key issues for ADI. I will then hand over to Ms Mokoba and Mr. Musekiwa. As the Chairman pointed out earlier, they are the experts on these matters. The people who have lived in the system are the ones who know just how inhuman it is.

Anti-Deportation Ireland is a grassroots organisation, which is asylum seeker and migrant-led. It also has allies and supporters involved. ADI represents the position and views of the asylum seekers themselves in the system.

ADI believes that the whole direct provision system is the way it is because of the deportation regime. From that point of view, direct provision - as Mr. Stephen Ng'ang'a was saying earlier - is often described as an open prison. As he pointed out, it is about surveillance but it is also about people being left in a state of deportability. It functions in this country as a kind of holding pen for people while they have the threat of deportation hanging over them. That is effectively what direct provision is. Anti-Deportation Ireland is calling for an end to deportation and direct provision - not reform of the system. It is also calling for the right to work for all asylum seekers in Ireland.

ADI does not fulfil a mediating role but is directly asylum seeker-led. ADI's recommendation quite simply is that direct provision has to end. Agencies such as RIA that oversee the direct provision system are far too dysfunctional in some ways to do anything about them, and Ms Mokoba and Mr. Musekiwa will be able to speak eloquently on that point.

Ms Conlon and Mr. Ng'ang'a mentioned the protests that have been going on in the country. In addition to people protesting about local conditions, they have also been protesting against direct provision. The protests that have taken place in Portlaoise, Cork, Waterford and Athlone called for an end to direct provision. In the meantime, people need to be able to live as other human beings do. For instance, in Kinsale Road, the protesters achieved more after ten days of protests than has been achieved by any Government or other agency that represents, advocates or oversees the asylum system and asylum seekers in this country in 14 years. Through direct negotiation with the owners, they won an awful lot of concessions in terms of their local conditions.

Ultimately, ADI's position is to seek an end to direct provision and an end to deportation. I will now hand over to Ms Mokoba and Mr. Musekiwa.

Ms Pako Mokoba:

I wish to thank you, Chairman, and other committee members for inviting us and for hearing our voices as asylum seekers. I have been in the system for six years. Last month, we protested about the system. Our protest is about the end of direct provision, not its reform. As Mr. Stephen Ng'ang'a said about direct provision, RIA works with the management so it is hard for our voices to be heard. Even when RIA representatives come for an inspection, they will alert the management that they are coming on that day. Before they come, the management will paint some rooms, cook nice food and make the place look clean. When RIA representatives come they do not speak with the residents. They will check that the light is working in room 101, but they do not talk to residents to hear what they are going through.

People living under direct provision for six years are sharing accommodation with families, including children. An eight year old child might be living with its parents but there is no privacy, even emotionally. When they want to do other stuff, how can they do it in front of a child? How can one educate a child when there is no table or space in which to do homework? Where is the playground for children to play? We are living in 2014, but a child born in the system does not know what it is to live in a house with a kitchen. That child does not know what it means to live a human life that is full. Life for such a child is only in one room and they cannot even visit anybody else. As we are living in direct provision, other people are not allowed to visit us. We have been living like that for six long years.

We have been in the system for years yet nothing has happened. I have been in Portlaoise for six years but we have never seen any organisation visiting us or hearing our voices. The first time our voices were heard was when we protested. That was when a NGO came to try to speak with us, but for all those years we did not know if such NGOs existed in the system or in Ireland generally.

It is like an open prison because one cannot be out of the hostel for more than three days.

If we want to stay out of the hostel for three days or more, we must let them know where we are going and what we are doing. We are living an institutionalised life. If I do not want to take breakfast, I am forced to wake up and take breakfast. If I do not want to take lunch, I must take lunch at a certain time. I must do these things at a certain time for four, six or ten years or more. Some people are 14 years in this system. Many of those in the system are depressed or have mental health issues because of this system. There are even cases of adults and different nationalities having to share a room. Everybody is entitled to a personal or private life, but when people are living in an institution like direct provision, they do not have any private life. They have no say with anybody.

As Mr. Ng'ang'a mentioned, management and the Reception and Integration Agency, RIA, work together. If people complain, they are transferred. They are transferred so far away that they will never complain again. They will be transferred to a place as far away as Sligo or some other distant place. They will never be transferred to Dublin, where they might be able to meet with people who might listen to them. As I mentioned already, we cannot be part of the community. The members of the community cannot visit us. They are restricted from visiting. They can come so far, but cannot go beyond a certain place. Therefore, how can they know the truth about the system?

On the payment of €19.10, the payslip of asylum seekers indicates a payment of €186, but what an asylum seeker gets weekly is €19.10. There is a significant gap between these moneys. Where does the rest of the money go? It is a business. The owners of the system are gaining, while the lives of asylum seekers are in limbo. After children complete secondary school, they live in limbo. They cannot proceed to third level, which is frustrating for those kids who are A level students. There are doctors and engineers in direct provision, but they are not given the opportunity to work. Irish employers will bring in somebody from outside of Ireland to take those positions, while people who are qualified for those positions already exist in the system. These people cannot work, not by choice, but because they are not allowed to do anything.

Some children in direct provision have a "Red" passport in the system. These children do not claim any benefit and are not provided with any social welfare. They are seen to be Irish children by the Department and their parents do not receive the €9.60 for these children. The parents receive no benefit because of having an Irish child. The parents living in direct provision are frustrated by the fact that this child receives no allowance.

The length of time spent in direct provision is the major problem. We stay in the system for too long. It would be better if direct provision only lasted for a year or six months. After a year in the system, everybody is frustrated, even older children sharing with their parents.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Mokoba for that powerful testimony.

Mr. Gerald Musekiwa:

I thank the Chairman and the committee for inviting us to make a presentation. I come from a hostel which is 10 km outside the local town centre of Portlaoise. This centre is isolated. We talk about integration, but there is no way to integrate with the community because we are surrounded by sheep and cattle. That is what forms the community around us.

In regard to the demonstration that took place within my hostel, the main reason people were up in arms and demonstrated was because of the long stay in direct provision. Many of us, including myself, have been in the system for seven years. I was one of the first people to arrive at my hostel and I am still there. The main issue for us is the long stay. All of the issues we are discussing here and problems within the asylum process arise as a result of the accumulation of years in direct provision. If people were assigned to direct provision for one or two years, they would know where they stood and we would not hear the complaints that are being made about the system as a whole.

I believe that the system is not the only problem, but also the inactivity in areas such as the Judiciary and other areas of the processing system. It is a lethargic process. I say this in respect of people who are on the list for deportation. Most of the people I know in my own hostel who are on the deportation list have been signing for three or four years. I see this as a form of torture. Every month they go and sign on and every month they fear deportation. I believe there should be some resolution everything. If people cannot be deported, why are they not permitted to stay? If it is not possible to send them back to their country, why are they not given permission to stay, instead of keeping them in fear for four years?

Another aspect of the process is that of asylum seekers with families. I have a father and I share a room with my wife and daughter who is two and a half years old. Everything my child sees and says will portray and be dictated by whatever activity takes place in our room. I know a family of four in my hostel, a father, mother and two children - all in a room the size of a prison cell. There should be some resolution to the cases of people like this. People are five, six or seven years in the system, but we are still talking about their cases. This is wrong. Many of these people could contribute to this nation not only as workers, but in setting up businesses. Some of the people in direct provision are doctors. Many people with potential have been stuck for years in this system.

People who have been stuck for years in the system have not been allowed the opportunity to retrain or work. I see work as something that helps to provide balance for mental health. For some years, I have been considering the fact that nobody comes to our hostel to check on our mental health. We must go out to the community for that. In the country I come from, mental health issues are seen as taboo and people, therefore, never go out to somebody to say they have a mental health problem. Over the past seven years, I have never seen a qualified person come to my hostel to check on the people in the hostel. The only time I have seen mental health personnel is when they have been taking somebody to the psychiatric ward.

Mental health issues are a symptom of the problem of long stays in direct provision where people have nothing to do with their lives. People are faced with the issue of what to do with their time.

What does one do with one’s time? One’s children are watching one sitting there doing nothing. One’s life is at a standstill. Most of the children who have grown up within the system speak and actually behave like adults. They even talk about the asylum process like they know it like a book. Why? It is because their parents speak about it and they learn from their parents. That is a parent's role. Everything good and bad is shown to one’s child. We are in a room. I am with my wife. I want to have what one does in a relationship. How can I do it in front of my child? We cannot do it. It is not possible because we are all in the same room. Direct provision is not good for a family at all. It breaks families.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you Mr. Musekiwa for a very powerful testimony.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank our visitors for a very good explanation of what is involved in the direct provision system. I recall many years ago that in Galway, where I live, accommodation was provided in hostels and small hotels which were unsatisfactory too. We did not use the term "direct provision" at that time.

We have heard about good and poor management of these centres, as well as the need for qualified personnel to be able to deal with mental health issues affecting those in direct provision accommodation. As good management of these centres is key, how are their management structures put together?

If we were to end all of this and start all over again, where should one start?

Ms Pako Mokoba:

Management of these centres are appointed by the owners of the direct provision accommodation. They are not doing it for free and are paid by the centres or the owner. As they have to protect their jobs, there will never be any fair treatment or justice. The managers or the owners cannot allow the operation to close because they are making money. This is a business.

Mr. Gerald Musekiwa:

If we were to start the system as a whole over again, we need one asylum process and not to have it in stages as it is currently. The first step would be to clear out all the people who have been in the system for years. Some people, mainly good people, have been in the system for five years and more. Why can they not be given a chance?

Ms Anne Mulhall:

Anti-Deportation Ireland believes institutional living has to end and we need to go back to pre-2000 arrangements where people had access to the welfare system the same as anyone else living in this country. We welcome the proposed single application procedure, referred to by Mr. Musekiwa, for refugee status and subsidiary protection. However, we have some questions about this process. Most people given residency in Ireland get it on the grounds of leave to remain. This is generally granted on the grounds of a person’s contribution to and integration into society. Accordingly, a person will need a reference from Irish or other EU citizens, demonstrate having done certain courses or volunteered for different organisations. We have concerns about such cases. We also have concerns about whether the possibility to make an appeal will be reduced.

Given the lethargy of the system, as described by Mr. Musekiwa, what will fundamentally change in the proposed single process? Will it speed up to the extent that it is no longer this system, described by Ms Mokoba and Mr. Musekiwa so well, with people living in institutions for years on end with deportation orders hanging over their heads which is really a form of torture? We would call for a return to pre-2000 arrangements which would allow people the right to work.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is important.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegation for giving honest and factual evidence to the committee. We welcome hearing their stories. What is happening with this system is entirely wrong. At the same time, we have to strike a balance. We cannot have a situation whereby people will come into the country and be entitled to all of the welfare or different sources of benefits available through the different Departments. This cannot be allowed because then we would have what we would call a free-for-all. We cannot have that because this country cannot afford it.

At the same time, one cannot stand over a situation, as has been properly outlined today, of people being put into a room and kept there for five, ten, 12 or 14 years under direct provision. That is equally wrong. We need to strike a balance and have fair play. We should be extremely welcoming of people. I do not care where they are from or who they are. If they want the opportunity to live and work here, we should be putting our hands around them telling them they are welcome and every good luck to them. We should not be picking people out. Who do we think we are to be putting people into a room and telling them to wait there until we deal with them in due course? That is playing with people’s lives and is not right. It is not right, fair or proper that young people, born here, are kept in a room with their parents and left there for years until we decide what we will do with them. These are young people born in Ireland who should be given the exact same rights and freedoms of any other person’s child who is born in Ireland. I feel very strongly about this.

I am the first to say we cannot change from the current situation to one where we welcome everybody and help them. That cannot happen as we cannot afford to do it, but if people want to come here to live and work, nothing but a red carpet should be laid for them when they arrive. Every opportunity should be afforded to them, be it education or work. This is not a nanny state that can tell people to come here because we can take care of them, keep them, provide them with money and proper health care care. We cannot afford that nonsense; that day is gone. At the same time, we should not move the other way, which is where we have gone with the direct provision system. It is called fair play, being balanced and equitable and giving people who want to come here the same rights that were afforded to our parents and grandparents when they went to other countries such as England and America to look for work and opportunities. Thankfully, they were given the right to work, which is what we should give to those who come here and want to stay. We should not discriminate against them as currently happens.

Deputy Séamus Kirk:

I have one or two questions.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also have a question. I will take a question from the Deputy and we can get responses to all of the questions asked.

When the Committee on Finance, Expenditure and Public Reform considered the Freedom of Information Bill, representatives of ADI appeared before it. Testimony was given by Ms Bakaabatsile who said, "Another issue of concern is the number who have died while in direct provision accommodation. We need to know how many have died, the causes of death, the centres at which they died and about the care they received while there." The committee's report stated: "The Joint Committee was distressed to be told: "What is the point of people being granted refugee status when they are being buried in Ireland and what should happen to children in places such as Africa whose parents are buried here?" I want to obtain an update on the distressing evidence given to that committee.

Deputy Séamus Kirk:

Approximately how many people are currently in direct provision centres in Ireland?

Ms Anne Mulhall:

About 4,300.

Deputy Séamus Kirk:

Embracing how many nationalities?

Ms Anne Mulhall:

I do not know, but it is a large number.

Mr. Gerald Musekiwa:

In my hostel 25 nationalities are represented.

Deputy Séamus Kirk:

ADI has specific demands, including the immediate abolition of the direct provision system. With what would it envisage replacing the direct provision system? Comments made during the meeting suggest there are significant variations in standards and the general operation of direct provision centres across the country.

Ms Anne Mulhall:

Some object to the comparison with the outrage about Magdalen laundries and mother and baby homes. Imagine sitting in on a committee such as this and asking how we can reform and retain such a system. As far as we are concerned, this system of institutionalisation cannot be reformed. Ms Conlon and Mr. Ng'ang'a spoke about this during the last session - one cannot reform a system such as this. There is such potential for the abuse of power written into this form of institutionalisation that it cannot be salvaged. Our position, as I have said, is that we want to see a return to pre-2000 conditions when people who came to the country to seek refuge had access to the same rights and supports from the State as anybody else.

Mr. Musekiwa and Ms Mokoba should be answering the question posed, but I want to address a couple of comments made by Deputy Michael Healy-Rae. He may not have meant it, but he implied that people came here to freeload off the system and that if Europe did something about its murderous immigration and deportation policies, people would suddenly flock to Ireland. There is no evidence that would happen. People come here because they want to make lives for themselves. That is what we hear time and again and what Mr. Musekiwa and Ms Mokoba have said about their experience of direct provision, namely, that the worst things about it are not being able to work, study and forge one's own life in the way one wants to do.

I refer to the position of ADI on deportation in the light of what was said. It is a fact that the treacherous routes people have to take to get to Europe to claim asylum are the result of Europe's immigration policies and procedures. In the past decade tens of thousands have died because of this. The European Union is the most dangerous place in the world for asylum seekers to reach to claim asylum. This goes against the its vision of itself as a tolerant and free place, but it did not represent this for the people who died while trying to come it. So far this year, 4,000 people have died while trying to reach to Europe to seek refuge. That is a fact.

Deputy Séamus Kirk:

During what period of time?

Ms Anne Mulhall:

It is an everyday occurrence.

Deputy Séamus Kirk:

What are the typical circumstances in which people lose their lives?

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Usually they drown. Is that correct?

Ms Anne Mulhall:

It happens on the Mediterranean Sea, in particular. People often have to take very dangerous routes to get to Europe.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

People travelling on routes from the African continent to sovereign European countries have drowned, died in containers and so on.

Ms Anne Mulhall:

Yes. The blame is laid at the feet of traffickers, but the only reason the system of clandestine travel and trafficking is in place is it is so difficult to get to Europe in the first place. People are desperate, for different reasons, to keep on living. They are fleeing terrible circumstances. These are among the reasons we say deportation has to end. That is our position. I wanted to state this in the light of what the last speaker said.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important to have that engagement. I refer to the recording of deaths in centres. Mr. Musekiwa and Ms Mokoba may wish to respond.

Ms Pako Mokoba:

I do not know what the numbers are, but I know of two people who died in the centre. Last year I was very ill and there was no help available. I had no one to visit me and went to sleep hungry because I was not able to walk to get food from the dining hall.

Mr. Gerald Musekiwa:

As Ms Mokoba said, there have been two deaths in our hostel.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What age were the people who died?

Mr. Gerald Musekiwa:

They were adults.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Were they young or middle aged?

Ms Pako Mokoba:

They were middle aged adults.

Mr. Gerald Musekiwa:

It is a matter of support.

We try to support ourselves and each other, but we can only go so far. Without access to external support and expertise, it is very hard. Some of the difficulties people face are to do with mental health issues.

Ms Pako Mokoba:

We had many people in our hostel who had mental health issues which were not taken seriously. In one case of which I am aware, a woman cannot go from the hostel because of the mental space she is in. She has been in the system for nine years. Now that she has finally been given freedom, she cannot walk into that freedom, which is very sad. People are in the system for years without being allowed to go to work or school. People who are finally given leave to stay after being in direct provision accommodation are told at the social welfare office that they must look for work. However, most employers want people with experience. How are people to get that experience while they are in the system? How do we obtain the qualifications that will help us to find work when our immigration status is confirmed? People who are given the opportunity to stay in Ireland do not want to remain on social welfare; they want to work and contribute to the economy.

Last Friday, 17 October, was International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, an annual initiative by the United Nations. Ireland is part of that effort to end poverty for all citizens. I found myself wondering last Friday whether there was any consideration for asylum seekers in direct provision accommodation. They are living in poverty and have no address. Even though we have a roof over our heads, we are effectively homeless.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates for their contributions.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I ask a final question, Chairman?

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I cannot allow it. We have two further delegates and are already tight on time.

I assure the delegates that the transcript of the meeting will be sent to the Minister of State, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin. It will also be brought to the attention of the independent working group for consideration as part of its deliberations. The delegates' direct evidence will have an impact on that work.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ms Karen McHugh of Doras Luimní, an organisation based in Limerick which works to support and promote the rights of immigrants, and Mr. Greg Straton of SPIRASI, a non-governmental organisation working with asylum seekers, refugees and disadvantaged migrant groups. I thank both delegates for their submissions which have been circulated to members and for agreeing to make a joint presentation. The transcript of these hearings will be submitted to the Minister of State, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, for the attention of the independent working group. Everything the delegates tell us will fit into that work, as well as assisting us in our own deliberations.
By virtue of section 17 (2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. If they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are further advised that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. All of this sounds formidable, but it is just a legal statement which I am obliged to deliver to all delegates giving evidence before the committee.
I invite Ms McHugh to make her presentation.

Ms Karen McHugh:

I thank the joint committee for inviting me to make a presentation. Doras Luimní was established in February 2000 on foot of the announcement of the policy of dispersing asylum seekers outside Dublin. A group of individuals in Limerick called a meeting to see how best the city might prepare to welcome new arrivals and consider the types of issue the newcomers might encounter on their arrival.

"Doras" stands for "development organisation for refugees and asylum seekers". Ours is a support organisation focused on the human rights of migrants. Migrants' rights are human rights entirely, no different from those of anybody else. We are not requesting anything extra for the people we represent. Our work is based around three pillars, namely, direct support work, integration and campaigning. Direct support work comprises advice and information services, including the provision of a legal clinic. The integration aspect consists of integration policy planning. Members may be aware that Limerick is soon to become the second city in Ireland to be designated an intercultural city under the Council of Europe's Intercultural Cities, ICC, programme. The third pillar of our work involves campaigning on three specific issues - racism, trafficking and protection, with our key campaign focusing on issues to do with direct provision.

I will concentrate on three particular issues in my presentation. Some of the points I intended to make have already been covered by the delegates from the Irish Refugee Council. I will try to avoid repetition, but members might already have heard some of the points I intend to make. However, there is no harm in saying these things again.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no harm at all in reaffirming key points.

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.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms McHugh. It is a very substantive submission and will be noted in terms of our final report. Ms Patricia Kennedy from Doras Luimní has also joined us. I invite her to take a seat because when we come to questions and answers, she might be able to assist. I now invite Mr. Greg Straton to make a presentation and we will then have a question-and-answer session.

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.

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.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms McHugh stated that Doras Luimní has been excluded from the Foynes centre. Who has excluded it and why?

Ms Karen McHugh:

We understand that the owner has excluded us. Obviously, that is a matter for the owner and the Reception and Integration Agency. We had been visiting the centre on a regular basis - at least twice a month, if not more - since it opened.

Unfortunately, we are disappointed that such powers can exist. Other organisations are allowed to visit it. We were invited by the residents in or around 14 August because they had many concerns about the conditions, treatment and food and were going to hold a protest.

We are often asked by owners, managers and residents to mediate conflicts. Generally, we have worked with everyone successfully to achieve temporarily peaceful places. We visited Mount Trenchard and met the owner, management and residents. An agreed action plan was reached, people shook hands and we walked away, but within a couple of minutes a number of residents were transferred with immediate notice. Unfortunately, the plan agreed with the private contractor, which is funded by the State, fell apart immediately and residents were transferred under Garda escort, which was inappropriate. Since then, we have visited a couple of times. In September, security would not let us inside, unlike everyone else.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there an appeals process?

Ms Karen McHugh:

No. We are meeting the owner and the centre's several managers, but it is unlikely that we will ever have access again.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is incredible. Doras Luimní, a highly regarded NGO that is recognised by the State and is regularly mentioned in these Houses for its work on the rights of asylum seekers, is being denied access to a Government-funded facility. Is that Ms McHugh's testimony?

Ms Karen McHugh:

Yes.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is shocking.

Ms Karen McHugh:

We have appealed to the Reception and Integration Agency, RIA, but have been advised that this is at the discretion of the owner.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is a serious matter. As an interim measure, our committee will write to the RIA seeking urgent clarification in light of Ms McHugh's evidence and ask for an immediate resolution. Is that agreed? Agreed. Ms McHugh's testimony was shocking.

Ms Karen McHugh:

We appreciate the committee's decision. It has been difficult to be excluded now when we have never been excluded from a centre before.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is unacceptable to our committee that a respected NGO like Doras Luimní cannot get access to provide support in a centre that is funded by taxpayers. We will write to the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, and RIA seeking urgent clarification on the issue and asking that Doras Luimní be given access to the centre immediately.

Ms Karen McHugh:

I will add to the committee's information. We are meeting the owner and trying to gain access, but the process has been constantly delayed. Mount Trenchard is very isolated, with Limerick approximately 40 minutes away. We have been advised that the bus service to Limerick, which used to run three times per week, is now running every day. Fortunately, some of the residents can attend our English language and other programmes. As members know, Limerick is a small city, so the bus can park right outside Doras Luimní and bring the residents to us.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry to interrupt, but the committee will seek to visit two centres, one urban and one rural. We reserve the right to visit the centre in question. I thank Ms McHugh for her testimony. We will write seeking urgent clarification from the Minister of State and RIA and expect that Doras Luimní will regain access to the centre.

I apologise to members, but I have a final question about the Ombudsman. We heard Mr. Straton's evidence. I assume that Ms McHugh shares his opinions on oversight by the Ombudsman and the Information Commissioner, which constitute the same office.

Ms Karen McHugh:

Absolutely; 100%.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their evidence, the detail of which is useful. I concur with the Chairman's comments about visiting the centre. Hopefully, the RIA will attend the committee. If there is to be an oversight mechanism, should it constitute random access for NGOs or something else? We as elected representatives can be in the same position as Doras Luimní, in that we must ask permission to visit people in direct provision centres. Should the oversight mechanism allow for random access by elected representatives? We should be able to visit constituents in those centres when we wish and not at the behest of the likes of the RIA.

The Ombudsman's remit is good, but Ms McHugh also mentioned the Office of the Ombudsman for Children and its oversight role. The former Ombudsman, Ms Emily Logan, has given evidence to the committee and we share her concerns. Should we note anything specific about her former office's level of oversight ahead of any contact we might have or report we might make as regards issues relating to children?

I was aware of the issue with contracting from other work being done in the Houses. We are spending approximately €53 million per year on centres directly. Are the witnesses telling me that, despite this, there is no auditing of a substantial nature at national level, we have no accounts for many of the companies in question, there is no oversight of their corporate governance and we do not know how the money is being spent? That would be incredible. I was afraid that it might be the case, but the witnesses might clarify the situation. If it is the case, should the issue be raised with the Committee of Public Accounts so as to determine how the €53 million per year of State funding is being spent?

I have been working on this issue for a number of years, but how many asylum seekers are not housed in direct provision? How are they dealt with and do they have a complaints mechanism to address their issues? The witnesses, as organisations, and linking with the Chairman's comments-----

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, but I must take more questions. The Senator has asked enough, but he can proceed.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have discussed how asylum seekers can make complaints to the system, but what mechanism do the organisations before us have for making complaints if they are not satisfied with how matters are being handled or they are being treated and how well does it work? If they do not have a mechanism, what would they recommend? If comparisons with international best practice were possible, would the witnesses suggest we research any particular matter or model so as to inform our deliberations?

The detail of the witnesses' evidence is fantastic and has highlighted important issues. We will be quite busy with our report.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before the witnesses answer, I wish to say that both presentations were excellent and helpful to our future work.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps we could deal with two members' questions at a time?

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are the witnesses happy to receive further questions, or am I overburdening them?

Ms Karen McHugh:

No, that would be grand. This is easy.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There will be plenty of time to respond.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The witnesses might talk us through the arrangements for access to education for children and adults. How satisfactory is the access to general health care? What of access to travel for people in direct provision centres? Is there an assessment of the skill sets of those joining the centres, particularly adults, with a view to developing them and increasing people's prospects?

If there are skills and abilities, there is the potential to develop them to increase the prospects of the individual concerned.

Mr. Greg Straton:

In terms of skills sets, abilities and prospects, this is an interesting question. I referred to the need to be informed by people's long-term prospects. We are encountering varying levels of skills. I know of an obstetrician who previously worked with Médecins Sans Frontières and spent four years in the asylum process without being allowed to work. There are skilled professionals who were probably regarded as a danger to the state in their countries of origin and are coming here to seek protection from persecution. There are also individuals with limited skills who require a high degree of support. This highlights the fact that we do not assess people on this basis when they arrive at reception. In Ireland we engage in reception very badly in assessing what people need and can offer. We should do this when they first arrive in order to maximise their potential, while also ensuring they are properly supported through the process.

That brings me to the issue of health care, which is often patchy and difficult. GPs and primary carers can be very skilled at providing support, but it depends on the area to which an individual is dispersed. Often the dispersal decision is not well informed. Women who were subjected to sexual violence as part of their torture experience have been dispersed to locations which lack support services in dealing with these issues. We are not using the reception phase to assess an individual's needs and ensure he or she has access to adequate health care.

This is related to the issue of travel. People access our services from around the country, including Limerick, Cork, Galway and Kerry. Community welfare officers in the Department of Social Protection are often very good at providing support for travel. Sometimes, however, too much discretion is exercised by community welfare officers. If they do not like an individual, it can often be difficult to overcome that dislike and we find ourselves advocating for him or her. However, if an individual is travelling to Spirasi to attend a therapeutic appointment, we do not generally have problems in this regard, although we encounter episodic issues.

Ms Karen McHugh:

On access to education, all children are eligible for first and second level education. However, they do not have the same access to third level education because they have no financial support to pay fees. I acknowledge that the Minister for Education and Skills recently spoke against this arrangement and indicated that she wanted to include asylum seeker children in a wider and more inclusive system of access to third level education. It is a source of great concern that many young people who reach the age of 18 years and are more than capable of progressing to university are excluded. We are in the fortunate position of being able to support certain individuals who have been able to obtain scholarships. We are in contact with one individual who earned 600 points in the leaving certificate examination. Such an individual should not be excluded, but it took some time to arrange a scholarship. The individual concerned is an asset to the country.

Education for asylum seekers is usually up to FETAC level 4, but the majority of provision is in the areas of computers and English. We provide English language classes and access to computers because that is what can be funded. We have provided English language classes since the day the organisation was established. However, people who have been in the system system for two, five or 14 years do not need English language classes or computer training. Access to education is very limited. Certain funders will support separated and aged-out minors at third level. We have been fortunate in arranging charitable support in this area.

Mr. Greg Straton:

In terms of education, it is important to consider the longer term outcome of the process. Either we will be accepting people into the State or we will be returning them to their home countries. If we are going to accept them into the State, we should put them in a place where they can take up employment and become economically active rather than being a burden on the State. However, we are not developing the structures to allow that to happen. We have instead a structure that ensures people will be dependent on the State. That is wrong. If we are going to return people who have gained something while they are here, they are more likely to return in a more positive way than is the case. It becomes a much more difficult process to return people who have gained nothing. We should inform ourselves based on these long-term outcomes, rather than saying we will simply put up a barrier and ensure people do not arrive.

Ms Karen McHugh:

On alternatives to direct provision, I advise members to examine the document produced by the Irish Refugee Council, Direct Provision: Framing an Alternative Reception System for People Seeking International Protection, which outlines a model that we support. It involves a self-catering system similar to the system in place prior to 2000. The Irish Refugee Council investigated several models of international best practice. Portugal is, apparently, one such example. I hope to visit that country.

Mr. Greg Straton:

In Sweden the Red Cross provides accommodation on a not-for-profit basis. It also provides a greater level of care for people who arrive, in addition to accommodation and food. The not-for-profit provision of service is very important.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about purpose built accommodation based on the family unit?

Mr. Greg Straton:

Absolutely, these are the structures that need to be in place.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there any reason NGOs did not tender to provide direct provision centres? Mr. Straton outlined the example of the Red Cross in Sweden.

Mr. Greg Straton:

That is a good question. I do not know if Spirasi would be interested in doing it, but it would be useful to consider the process.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has the process been open to it?

Mr. Greg Straton:

I do not know how the tendering process works. I have not studied it sufficiently to comment, but NGOs should be allowed to tender.

Ms Karen McHugh:

There has been some publicity around tendering but not for some time. More information needs to be provided through independent audits, rather than by the providers.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is any auditing carried out of the 53 centres? One company was given €100 million to run centres. Was the spending of that money not audited?

Ms Karen McHugh:

Providers are answerable to the Reception and Integration Agency on their contracts. The achievement of health and safety standards is audited by an external group.

Mr. Greg Straton:

I understand they have moved their accounts overseas in order to escape the obligation to file accounts.

They have moved their accounts overseas to escape the fact they would have to file those accounts.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is strange when there are cutbacks in public expenditure and so on and we have been debating the expenditure of Irish Water and other organisations, that €53 million allocated annually by a Department is apparently not fully audited. It is something we probably need to investigate.

Mr. Greg Straton:

The principle that to derive a profit, one has to be prudent in terms of how one spends on the provision of accommodation and food, is a difficult concept to accept.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the RIA, for example, have guidelines? I could have a company that receives €1 million a year to run a centre but I could run it in a way that ensures a €500,000 profit. Are there guidelines in the tendering process regarding the profits companies can make?

Mr. Greg Straton:

RIA officials are the only ones who can answer that question.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is an interesting issue.

Mr. Greg Straton:

Regarding the question about the number of people taking up direct provision, it is between 80% and 90%. I cannot remember exactly but not all asylum seekers take up direct provision as an option. That is a particular issue for some of our service users because if one does not take up direct provision, one will have access to a medical card, the €19.10 weekly payment for an adult or the €9.60 payment for a child. We suspect that they use those two mechanisms to force people into direct provision. We have people who are victims of torture who may sleep rough or sleep on friend's couches and so on. They may have serious mental health issues. We know of people who had psychiatric issues and who could not take up direct provision such as Mount Trenchard. They left because the accommodation is not suitable and they lost all access to psychiatric care and medication. That is difficult for us, especially when we are trying to work with primary care providers to rehabilitate victims of torture. If they are not in direct provision, it can often be a big issue for us to overcome. Not everybody takes it up.

Ms Karen McHugh:

We raised a couple of complaints recently, in particular about our access to Mount Trenchard. We have not had a reply. We made quite a few complaints and residents have made complaints. There are house rules. If members have not seen them, they can be downloaded from the RIA website. The complaints procedure is at the back and it is small. I encourage complaints in my organisation and, therefore, we encourage people to complain. One improves one's service if one receives complaints and reflects on what one does. One may make changes based on complaints. However, because of complaints, people have been treated differently. In particular, we have evidence of that in terms of transfers.

I mentioned the situation in Mount Trenchard in Limerick. People vocally expressed their concerns and they were transferred pretty much immediately. There is a great deal of evidence relating to complaints and transfers.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To whom do the organisations appearing before us complain? Is there a formal procedure?

Ms Karen McHugh:

No.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do they correspond with the RIA?

Mr. Greg Straton:

Yes, it would largely just be correspondence with the RIA. There is no oversight on that. It may be escalated to the Minister but that would probably be the only recourse to any action.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I asked a question about the Ombudsman for Children.

Ms Patricia Kennedy:

I worked for the past 20 years as a lecturer in social policy in UCD and the area of expertise I have concentrated on is maternity. Together with Dr. Jo Murphy-Lawless in Trinity College Dublin, I conducted the first study of the maternity needs of refugee and asylum seeking women. It was the first study of its kind in Europe. We made substantive recommendations and at the time I was pregnant. My daughter is now 14 and those recommendations are still there. I look at her and think of those babies.

Approximately ten years ago, Professor Bryan Fanning in UCD and Professor Angela Veale in UCC highlighted malnutrition among children in direct provision. In recent years, AkiDwA, which represents African women, highlighted similar issues, the high incidence of domestic violence and women keeping quiet when they were abused because they did not want the people in the next room to hear. Sometimes as a researcher one can get into places. I sat on the bed with some of these women. One woman was gang raped and was pregnant as a result of the rape. She had to leave her toddler with strangers when she went into hospital to give birth. One woman was lying on a bed having had a Caesarean section and her wound was oozing. She had not seen a medical professional.

These issues are constantly highlighted. Most recently, I conducted research funded by Daphne in eight different European countries into gender-based violence in direct provision. We trained eight asylum seekers to do the research. Most of those women had masters degrees but had no right to work in Ireland. We could not pay them to do the research because they were asylum seekers. They, therefore, did the research as an opportunity to improve their own plight and the plight of other asylum seekers. They talked about being unable to complain. They have third and fourth level degrees. If they complain, they will be moved or get less food. They also talked about incidents of gender-based violence within the reception centres and they have no right to complain.

Our Government is committed to an evidence-based policy. The evidence is there but nobody is acting on it. It would be worth it to draw the attention of the Ombudsman for Children to the existing research.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Ms Kennedy e-mail all the research she has referenced to us? Will she draw attention to the key points within it?

Ms Patricia Kennedy:

Yes. It does exist.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will include that in our deliberations.

Ms Karen McHugh:

We did research in 2010 on the transfer policy. That was evidence-based research into a centre that was closing in Limerick during the middle of the leaving certificate examinations. People were transferred at short notice, even young people who were doing their leaving certificate. As Ms Kennedy said, there is lots of evidence and research but it is not taken seriously. It would be helpful from the committee's point of view. As NGOs, we are often perceived to be challenging and difficult.

Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Long may that last. We desperately need NGOs in this country to protect people's rights.

I cannot thank the witnesses enough for their presentations, which have been immensely helpful to our work. We will take three actions. We will write to the RIA and the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, regarding the Mount Trenchard matter and we will request access for the NGOs to their work. We will seek urgent clarification on that matter. We will visit two centres and we may reserve the right to visit Mount Trenchard. We also send a transcript of the full hearing to the Minister of State and the independent working group.