Pa Daly (Kerry, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 has led to a mass influx of displaced persons to several EU member states. This has placed renewed pressure on the financial resources of the member states to deal with migration and border management needs.

The increased pressure is already being felt across member states that share a land border with Ukraine and the needs have been spreading further afield. The overall objective of this proposal, as the Minister said, is to support member states to address the consequences of war in Ukraine by facilitating access to unspent financial resources. Council implementing decision No. 382 of 2022 was adopted, "establishing the existence of a massed influx of displaced persons from Ukraine within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2001/55/EC, and having the effect of introducing temporary protection". This implementing decision has clarified that the efforts of member states to comply with their obligations and offer temporary protection will be supported by the EU Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund.

I want to address a few issues in regard to the White Paper on ending direct provision, which was introduced in February 2021. At the time of its publication, the White Paper was long overdue and there was much anticipation and expectation that there would finally be meaningful reform of a broken system. It is disappointing, 18 months later, that little or no reform has been undertaken. We welcomed the White Paper at the time because direct provision is a shameful and cruel system that has caused serious harm to many asylum seekers and wider communities. We need a modern, humane system that is fit for purpose. The White Paper contained many positive proposals, which we welcomed, including alignment of welfare rates with existing benefits, the provision of driver's licences for asylum seekers and a reduction in the reliance on private operators, one of which had obtained, through direct provision, the sum of €400 million over a period of years. The White Paper emphasised the importance of care and supports and, crucially, proposed a non-adversarial approach to applicants.

However, we pointed out at the time that the White Paper was lacking in ambition in a number of key areas. We asked that applicants be required to wait three months rather than six months before entering the labour market. We expressed disappointment at the granting of leave to remain for only five years for people who had been in the system more than two years. Many asylum seekers who were working in healthcare and food were anxious about facing deportation. In particular, we were concerned that the length of time people would remain in reception centres would be longer than four months if there was not a front-loading of capital investment in own-door accommodation and accelerated delivery of same. We were concerned about the White Paper's failure to address the growing problem of those with leave to remain who were trapped in direct provision. We called for greater supports to remove those families and ensure they were not subjected to entirely unnecessary and unfair delays.

There have been many critics of the direct provision system over the years, including very highly qualified individuals and organisations focused on supporting asylum seekers. The Government has not listened closely enough to those people and has entrenched a system that has been known to fail in the past. Dr. Geoffrey Shannon, a former special rapporteur on child protection, has called for direct provision for be abolished, noting it is not a suitable long-term solution. It has been described by the Irish Refugee Council as "already a chapter in Ireland's long and dark history of institutional living". Using for-profit accommodation providers has only added to the cruelty of the system. The Irish Refugee Council has stated that any replacement for direct provision should offer "own door accommodation, the opportunity to cook for oneself, to live in a community". The Department of Justice, which had responsibility for the direct provision system at the time, introduced regulations in this regard in August 2019. In July 2022, however, we still see the same problems, with people not having their own accommodation, being unable to cook for themselves and not being part of a community.

Three direct provision accommodation centres have been built in recent years. We all remember what happened when a large number of asylum seekers were moved into a former hotel in Cahersiveen, County Kerry. Approved housing bodies, AHBs, are clearly the best model, providing dignity and a sense of self and home and enabling asylum and refuge seekers to live a meaningful life. Any future policy that relies heavily on the private sector will repeat the mistakes of the past. I urge the Government not to repeat those mistakes. It is essential that it be transparent regarding the provision of all housing and the transition from the old direct provision model to any new system.

Direct provision was supposed to be a short-term measure designed to house people for weeks, not years, but half of the children in the direct provision system in 2019 had been there for more than five years. At that time, the Children's Rights Alliance, Dr. Liam Thornton of University College Dublin, UCD, and the Irish Countrywomen's Association all argued that direct provision does not have the best interests of children at its core and is a violation of the rights of the child, and that there is a need for access to complementary services. Some of those concerns were met in the White Paper but, unfortunately, 18 months since its publication and three years after the concerns were raised, we are still seeing the use of accommodation centres in very isolated areas.

Many of the asylum seekers who have come to my office say they are grateful to be in Ireland but that they quickly felt abandoned and lost in the system. They are concerned they have spent weeks and months waiting for answers via official channels. They do not have access to broadband, which makes it very expensive and stressful for them to communicate with Government bodies. All the while, they are receiving a very small amount of money from the State. Transportation to hospital or urgent appointments is also a very expensive proposition. They are reliant on Government resources such as the Tralee International Resource Centre, which provides invaluable help because there is nobody else to help them.

Direct provision is, in general, provided in sub-par accommodation in which residents are expected to share bedrooms and bathrooms, with little concern for the reasons they sought asylum in the first place. Many of them feel isolated. A single pregnant woman was sent to rural Kerry, for example, with no consideration as to how she would travel to her prenatal appointments. The travel cost was more than her weekly allowance, meaning much of her care was forgone. The provision of counselling to help her cope with the reasons she was alone and pregnant in Ireland was not even an afterthought. Many residents of direct provision refer to problems with shared kitchen resources, where facilities are often closed early in the evening and food is lost or stolen. Families may be living three to six to a single room, with some people sleeping on the floor. There is no capacity for children to play games, draw, write or even learn how to eat sitting at a kitchen table with any consistency or pleasure. Complaints from residents are met with threats of deportation or removal to a different location. One person faced the prospect of being moved to a container in Athlone, away from any small stability or community the individual had managed to establish.

We have not offered any respect for, or understanding of, people's culture but they must meet our the expectations of our culture. I urge the Minister at this late stage not to use the private sector as much as has been the case. He should use the State bodies and AHBs because they offer the best model for providing dignity and a sense of self and home.

See this speech in context