From top: The Ombudsman and Direct Provision: Update for 2019; Ombudsman Peter Tyndall

This morning.

Ombudsman Peter Tyndall has again voiced his concerns about the direct provision system.

He said that the “highly contagious nature of the COVID-19 virus has highlighted how unsustainable it is to have three or more people, who are not from the same family, living in the same room for a significant amount of time”.

He was speaking after the publication of his annual commentary on his experience of dealing with complaints from those in direct provision. It’s the Ombudsman’s third commentary since it was confirmed that his Office has jurisdiction to investigate complaints from people living in direct provision.

From the foreword:

While this commentary is about the work of my Office during 2019, given the circumstances I think it is appropriate that I should refer to the Covid-19 crisis. In my view the crisis, and in particular the highly contagious nature of the virus, brings into sharp relief just how unsuitable and unsustainable it is to have three or more people in the same room as is the case in many Direct Provision centres, particularly those being used on an emergency basis.

I acknowledge how quickly the International Protection Accommodation Service (IPAS, formerly RIA) of the Department of Justice and Equality has moved to address the practical difficulties the onset of Covid-19 has presented. I also appreciate how hard IPAS staff have been working to keep the residents of centres as safe as they can be within the physical constraints of the accommodation portfolio that IPAS currently provides.

It is those physical constraints of the current accommodation centres, rather than how IPAS acts towards residents, that cause me most concern about how applicants for international protection in the Direct Provision sector are treated. I deal with this point in more detail later in the commentary.

The most significant change by far is the increase in the number of applicants for international
protection being temporarily placed on an emergency basis in hotels, guesthouses and bed & breakfast accommodation.

I have commented before that I consider emergency Direct Provision facilities to be unsuitable for anything other than short-stay accommodation. In my view having people in hotels or
smaller facilities, which by definition are not designed to meet the needs of international protection applicants, is even more unsuitable and is just not a sustainable way to accommodate people seeking protection from often dangerous situations in their countries of origin.

In this context I highlight what I see as the risk of a two-tiered system becoming embedded within the Direct Provision sector.

I comment on what my staff have seen themselves and heard from residents on their visits to emergency centres, how they have interacted on the sector with IPAS, and what progress has been achieved.

I also highlight the benefits in IPAS moving towards a capital investment approach to procurement of accommodation rather than continued exclusive reliance on sourcing privately owned premises for additional accommodation spaces.

The report can be read in full here

Rollingnews