Irish Centre for Human Rights Blog

This post is written by Karen Fenton. Karen is a first-year student on the ICHR’s BCL (Human Rights) degree programme. With thanks to Dr Maeve O’Rourke.

Introduction

Our world has been brought to an unprecedented standstill by the outbreak of COVID-19. The past few months have seen the governments of the world rushing to contain the spread of the virus and “flatten the curve”.  Almost three months after the first confirmed case in the Republic, we now face almost 24,000 positive cases and a death toll of around 1,500. The pandemic has seen our Government put in place emergency measures such as the closure of schools, 3rd level institutions and non- essential businesses to stop the spread of the virus and protect ‘vulnerable’ people. Vulnerable in this context is taken to mean people who are older, who are immuno-compromised, who have underlying health conditions. However, there are other vulnerable people who have not been adequately recognised by the Government’s action thus far. In a critical period for self-isolation, we must consider those who are not in a position to do so. We must consider those in Direct Provision.

What is Direct Provision?

According to Department of Justice’s Reception and Integration Agency (RIA), Direct Provision is “a means of meeting basic needs of food and shelter for asylum seekers” while their asylum claims are being processed. The system has face severe criticism not only from civil society but also, in December 2019, from the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice and Equality which found the system “flawed in several respects” and in need of “root and branch reform, preferably replacement”. Direct Provision was designed as a short-term measure, but it is common for residents to live in centres for years. Although RIA oversees the Direct Provision system in Ireland, none of its staff work in the centres; they simply provide routine check-ups. Seven of the almost forty centres are state owned while the majority are managed on a for-profit basis by private contractors.

Those living in Direct Provision receive an allowance of just €38.80 per week, and many endure cramped living conditions and receive meals only at set times or have limited cooking facilities. It was only in 2018 after the Supreme Court decision in NHV v Minister for Justice and Equality that asylum seekers earned the right to work, yet this did little to address the barriers to work faced by many in Direct Provision. There is a nine month waiting period before one can apply for a work permit, the longest EU states are permitted to force asylum seekers to wait; and the permit must be renewed every six months. Asylum seekers cannot obtain a driving license, which was found by the Workplace Relations Commission in January 2020 to be a form of indirect discrimination.  Movement is difficult as most Direct Provision centres are located in remote areas and asylum seekers are not eligible for a free travel pass.

It is a system which has been condemned by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission for its racial segregation. That Direct Provision contravenes Article 3 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination is supported by the recommendations of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in 2019, calling on Ireland to take “concrete steps to phase out” Direct Provision and introduce an alternative reception model.

It is a system that has never worked: not even for its intended temporary use. If a pandemic has shaken some of the country’s most established institutions, what danger does COVID-19 pose to a system with already crumbling foundations?

COVID-19 and Direct Provision

There are currently 5,686 people living in Direct Provision centres and an estimated 20% have pre-existing conditions. On Monday 23 March 2020, the Department of Justice committed only to piloting an “off-site self-isolation facility for centre residents who are suspected of having the virus or who have the virus with mild symptoms”. No measures were taken to protect those who must remain in the centres.

As part of the Department of Justice’s contingency plan, it ordered Direct Provision and Emergency Accommodation centres to organise self-isolation rooms. However, without any real guidance or supervision by the Department of Justice, this has led to an inconsistency in the implementation of measures to stop the spread of COVID-19, as criticised by MASI. The Department’s guidelines also contain recommendations for banning guests as well as staggering meal times, yet this seems futile when several people share a room and bathrooms are wash areas are communal. Direct Provision centres have been described as “powder kegs for COVID-19” by Dr Eamonn Faller, an infectious disease specialist registrar at Cork University Hospital. Despite the advice from experts in a number of fields, the government still refuses to implement a consistent strategy across all Direct Provision centres to ensure the safety and well-being of some of the most vulnerable in our society today.

Skellig Star Hotel, Caherciveen, and other examples

On 18 March, the gradual relocation of 100 asylum seekers from Dublin to Skellig Star Hotel in Caherciveen, Co. Kerry, began in an effort to reduce the capacity of Direct Provision centres. At least a quarter of those moved have now tested positive for the virus. As Michael Clifford has written in the Irish Examiner: the central heating system in this centre has not been operational since last December. Despite the Department of Justice’s statement saying the boiler issue arose a day before the arrival of asylum seekers, it was disproven by a fire engineer who visited the scene almost two and half months before the arrival of the asylum seekers. When asked whether an audit on suitability for Direct Provision was carried out, the Department stated that a senior official “visited the premises as part of the assessment”. However, it was later established that the capacity of each bedroom was only determined after the arrival of the asylum seekers. With asylum seekers forced to share rooms with others not in their family unit, and with families having no option but to share communal spaces with many others, it is impossible to self-isolate. Yet, all residents have received correspondence ordering them to do so.

The lack of a consistent, supervised approach, and the capacity for abuse of power within the many privately run Direct Provision centres is also demonstrated by other complaints. For example, Mustaq, a resident of a Direct Provision centre in Kinsale, stated at the end of March that his family had been trying to observe the HSE guidelines by self-isolating and avoiding contact with other; however, management of the centre stopped him from leaving the dining area with milk for his daughter. Residents of another centre in Carrick-on-Shannon reported also at the end of March that management had taken insufficient preventative, sanitary measures to ensure the safety of the centre’s occupants, and that those speaking out against the conditions had been threatened with transfers to other centres.

Rising infections as still no opportunity for 1,700 people to self-isolate

RTE reported on 5 May that 1,700 asylum seekers are still sharing rooms with non-family members, despite advice of Chief Medical Officer Dr Tony Holohan, stating how impossible physical distancing is in these circumstances. As Nick Henderson, CEO of the Irish Refugee Council, has pointed out: while Irish society regains some normality as restrictions begin to be lifted, “those in Direct Provision will continue to live in congregated settings making them more exposed to the disease for the foreseeable future.”

A discriminatory pandemic response 

Throughout the pandemic, we have seen our Government work in tandem with the HSE to protect people from the spread of COVID-19. Measures such as nationalising the country’s health system to provide more resources and limiting movement have been undertaken to protect the physical health of people. The Government has also taken steps to ensure economic stability and mental wellbeing. So far emergency legislation has brought a ban on evictions and rent freeze as well as increased social benefits for those who lost their job during COVID-19.

However, there exists a disconnect between the Government’s responses generally and the situation facing one particular group of vulnerable people: asylum seekers. Although asylum seekers are among the HSE’s priority group for COVID testing, the lack of action by the Department of Justice shows a disjointed approach.

“At this critical time for our country we are fortunate to have people born elsewhere doing vital work in hospitals, care homes, supermarkets, as Gardai etc. This is a time to recognise the value of our diversity. Racist incidents are not acceptable should be reported to the Gardai”.

This was an ironic statement on Twitter from the Minister for Justice, Charlie Flanagan, just days after the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection chose to exclude asylum seekers who lost their job due to COVID-19 from eligibility for the COVID-19 Pandemic Unemployment Payment.

Minister for Health, Simon Harris, conveyed similar sentiments when speaking of the 160 healthcare workers currently living in Direct Provision:

“When we’re thanking front line workers, we should remember those 160. I want to thank them, because some individuals don’t extend a céad míle fáilte to people from other countries.”

On the date this statement was made, there were 164 cases of COVID-19 in Direct Provision centres.

In conclusion 

Those living in Direct Provision must be included in the conversation surrounding vulnerable people, because of a system that is putting them at high risk. Residents of Direct Provision do not need ministerial praise from a Government that has failed to protect their human rights. What they need is the abolition of Direct Provision.