A screen grab from a video made by 27 young people seeking asylum alone in Ireland during a six-day Easter Camp on human rights organised by the Irish Refugee Council and UNICEF in 2013
You’ll recall how a working group set up by the Government last year is reviewing the direct provision system in Ireland which is 15 years old this week.
The group is expected to publish a report next month.
There are more than 4,000 asylum seekers in Ireland, and they’re living in 34 accommodation centres across the country. Asylees are not allowed to work. Instead, adults receive €19.10 a week, while children receive €9.60 per week.
As the direct provision system is 15 years old this week, the Human Rights In Ireland blog is publishing a series of contributions from asylum seekers, artists, social workers, and activists about the system.
Further to this.
Dr Liam Thornton writes, on the blog, writes:
I received documentation a number of weeks ago, in an envelope with no note or attachments and do not know who the sender is. I have confirmed though that this is information that the Working Group is working from (at least in February 2015). I had sat on this as I did not want to pre-empt any recommendations that were made. Given that the information on the Working Group is now being drip fed, I’ve decided to partly release this information.
…
This information comes from a Draft Report of Theme Two to the Working Group on Improvements to the Protection Process, including Direct Provision and Supports to Asylum Seekers. I understand that this is the proposal from the Department of Social Protection.
…
The Working Group has considered four proposals, proposed by the Department of Social Protection, in relation to the direct provision allowance payment:Proposal One: To recommend an adult direct provision allowance of €38.74 per week, with €29.80 per week per child. On the basis of current persons (child and adults) in direct provision, this would cost an extra €4, 125,573 per year.
Proposal Two: An adult direct provision allowance of €38.74 per week, with a child allowance of €19.20 per week. On the basis of current persons (child and adults) in direct provision, this would cost an extra €3, 266,864 per year.
Proposal Three: An adult direct provision allowance of €25.59 per week, with a child allowance of €12.86. On the basis of current persons (child and adults) in direct provision, this would cost an extra €1, 109,807 per year.
Proposal Four: An adult direct provision allowance of €22.35 per week, and a child rate of €11.23 per week. On the basis of current persons (child and adults) in direct provision, this would cost an extra €555,620 per year.
…
Whatever the working group ultimately recommends, and whatever the Minister for Justice and Minister for Equality decide to do with this recommendation, I would hope that at a minimum direct provision allowance would be increased in light of proposal one. While I fundamentally disagree with the system of direct provision, its controlling and demeaning nature, the total denial of self-sufficiency and indignity foisted upon residents within enclosed institutional settings, such an increase may go some way (and admittedly not as far as I would like) to enhancing respect and dignity for those in direct provision.
The Working Group & Proposals For Direct Provision Allowance (Human Rights In Ireland)
Previously: The Institutionalisation of 1,818 Children In Ireland
throwing good money after bad, imo.
Yeah, those damn pesky humans with their rights… I mean, why should we try to give them basic dignity and some sense of normality, despite their often horrendous backgrounds which they are trying to escape and/or maybe trying to give their children a better life? Who cares about reducing high levels of mental health issues caused by our institutional greed, xenophobia and desire to make profit for the DP centre owners? Why bother to even consider protecting those fleeing conflict or persecution, if we’re legally and morally obliged to do so? I mean, it’s not like millions of Irish people over decades haven’t benefitted from fair treatment and opportunity in other countries… Amirite?
it’s still a fukn pittance. it won’t sort out waiting times in DP centres, it does nowt to improve conditions in the centres or bring them under the jurisdiction of HIQA for oversight and review. it won’t allow them to work. what it is tho, is a point scoring exercise in the run up to the election and has fuk all to do with anyone’s rights.
This is specifically related to the allowance, I don’t think anyone is suggesting it would do anything to fix the other problems you mentioned, which are undoubtedly also in need of addressing. Being allowed to work for example, as you said, would be ideal but in the interim any improvement (assuming it doesn’t lead to a stalling of greater, long-term improvement) has to be better than ‘throwing good money after bad’ surely? (Don’t call me Shirley etc)
so best case scenario put forward is to roughly double their current allowance to less than 40 bucks per week? granted it’s something, but it’s still a p1ss in the sea.
“Are we refugees forever?”
– well, the majority of people living in direct provision aren’t refugees at all, according to the courts.
A majorly flawed and prejudiced ORAC and RAT (speaking from experience) make endless wrong decisions, often but slowly overturned by later legal appeals. Our refugee recognition rate remains incredibly low compared to all other European countries – are you suggesting that we somehow get the ‘bad ones’ or perhaps you’re willing to accept the reason the UN and civil society continue to criticise the current system is because my first sentence is correct?
I’m sure that you know better than our judicial system.
A lot of the cases (if not most) are being appealed on grounds other than refugee status, such as compassionate grounds (I’ve lived here a long time, my kids go to school here, etc).
This is a tacit admission from the individuals concerned that they were never refugees in the first place.
There are loads of problems withe direct provision system; it was designed as a stop-gap measure that people would have to live in for a few months, rather than a few years. But if Ireland decides to let everyone in from a country poorer than us on makey-uppy grounds, more people will come than the public services will be able to adequately support.
It’s not surprising that our refugee recognition rate is lower than other countries’, we are very far from the nearst conflict zone, or anywhere that has had a major national disaster.
*natural disaster
Leave to Remain is indeed granted for such reasons and yes is quite common, but hardly surprising given the massive delays. The single procedure, which is long overdue, will clear up and speed up the process, create transparency etc, but the institutional prejudice and hostility will continue to negatively affect every case, and unless that is fixed we can never truly make a judgment on questions of how many are actually fleeing conflict etc. If a mistake and/or wilful error was made in relation to their application, then why wouldn’t anyone then argue for leave to remain, particularly if they’ve been here years, children born here etc? It is not a tacit admission of anything and none of these are ‘makey-uppy grounds’. Why do you think the FOI Act was just amended to only apply to both ORAC and RAT for only the last few years – there’s plenty of records of dodgy decisions dating back years in there.
Yes we are far, as is Finland (77% first instance recognition rate in 2013) and the Netherlands (61% in 2013). EU average? 34%. Ireland? 18%…
“Are we refugees forever?”
only if you keep appealing and taking resources from genuine asylum seekers.
There is no such thing as a ‘genuine’ asylum seeker, just like there isn’t such a thing as a bogus asylum seeker. We’re all entitled to apply for asylum – it’s the status of refugee which is then considered
The system as it stands is massively flawed, so obviously appeals are needed: officials who are quite clearly hostile and xenophobic, a ‘guilty until proven innocent mentality’ when questioning applicants, payment given per case decided thus encouraging fast-tracking negligence and no requirement for refugee law experience in RAT, general institutional hostility and indifference towards individual human rights but generally guided by a state security/xenophobic/save the cash mentality. And before you ask, I’ve previously worked in the sector for many years, from different perspectives and know all of the above to be true.
please quieten you dull troll
An “asylee” is someone who has been granted asylum. None of these people have been, yet.