Although the Government White Paper on ending Direct Provision, published in February 2021, only refers to consultation meetings beginning in November 2020, it is quite apparent that the migrancy sector NGOs had a considerable influence on the formation of policy, and indeed on the decision to end the system.
Although the lead Department was that of Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (DCEDIY), Roderick O’Gorman, and the Department of Justice is not listed as having taken part in bilateral meetings, much of the commitments in the White Paper are similar to demands made by the migrancy NGOs in a meeting with the Department of Justice a year before the publication of the White Paper.
The minutes of a meeting of the Advisory Group on Provision of Support Including Accommodation to Persons in the International Protection Process held on February 28, 2020 were released yesterday to Gript following a Freedom of Information request.
We had asked for “Minutes or reports on meetings held between the Minister or officials of her Department with the following Non Governmental Organisations since January 1 2020: “Immigrant Council of Ireland, Crosscare, Irish Refugee Council, Migrant Rights Centre, NASC, and the European Migration Network (Ireland),”
That meeting was chaired by Catherine Day who was also chair of the Expert Group on Direct Provision so there is little doubt but that the input of the NGOs through the Advisory Group did have an influence on the drafting of the recommendations in the White Paper. The meeting was also attended by six officials of the Department as well as four representatives of the NGOs whose names are redacted.
Most of the presentations were not made available for release. One of the presentations was from the Children’s Rights Alliance (CRA), which was founded in 1995 but which really took off when Atlantic Philanthropies granted it more than $4 million in the immediate aftermath of the 2004 Citizenship referendum which it opposed as the key organisation of the Coalition against the Deportation of Irish Children.
Part of the CRA presentation highlighted the problems within Direct Provision related to the role of TUSLA and the role of Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) having the power to conduct inspections on TUSLA in relation to children within the asylum system. The CRA’s other reference in relation to referrals to TUSLA possibly makes more sense now in the light of recent reports on the sexual exploitation of children, including migrant children, under the care of TUSLA.
The CRA’s recommendations include demands that were incorporated into the proposals to abolish Direct Provision and allow all asylum seekers to avail of rights normally reserved for people who are citizens or otherwise recognised as having a legal right to residency in the state.
Thus, the CRA was asking that public land be used in order to build accommodation for asylum seekers, and that this be contracted out to NGOs to oversee. They wanted the Housing Department to be given “responsibility for creating hubs for reception centres.”
During a question and answer session, the Jesuit Refugee Centre requested that Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) for persons within the asylum process be increased, and expressed unhappiness with the fact that people on HAP could not transfer between different local authorities. They noted the need to address “misconceptions” about criminality and “a view that the IP [International Protection] population are ‘queue-skipping’.” They too wanted refugee housing to be part of overall housing policy.
The Children’s Rights Alliance were even more forthright in their demand that “radical solutions are required for the housing crisis, and that the Department of Justice be given a role here. They wanted the NGOs, including the Approved Housing Bodies, to have a greater role in this too and noted that the McVerry Trust had established a dedicated company for that purpose.
They were clearly anticipating some of the measures set out in the White Paper and wanted to see the creation of a “specific refugee housing body, and that there would be a “rapid build” programme part of which seemingly would involve that “Athlone could be replaced with Rapid Build.” One wonders exactly what that would entail.
The Movement for Asylum Seekers in Ireland (MASI) wanted people in reception centres to be moved into “Local authority allocations,” and that all applicants for International Protected be allowed to have drivers licenses, bank accounts and to work. Doras Luimní complained about the lack of funding for NGOS. They suggested that a “Community sponsorship system could aid in sensitising communities to diversity.”
The question and answer session with AkidWa and Cultúr also exposed serious concerns about the atmosphere within the Direct Provision centres. AkidWa stressed that “increased safeguards are needed in centres to prevent sexual harassment,” and also confirm other claims that prostitution was common, noting that “outreach services have heard that transactional sex proliferates.”
Cultúr admitted that “gang culture” was a problem and that some of the children in the centres had been “child soldiers.” There was tension between different groups around entitlements and “cultural clashes,” something that also featured in a previous report on violence at City West.
It was also claimed that women were not reporting violence against themselves.
Many such concerns have been voiced by communities where both refugee reception centres are located and within communities where particular ethnic groups live. These have mostly been dismissed as baseless fears or as examples of politically and racially motivated “misinformation” and scaremongering.
