Irish Centre for Human Rights Blog

The Irish Centre for Human Rights welcomes this guest post from Angelica Shilova, alumna of the LLM International Migration and Refugee Law and Policy (Irish Centre for Human Rights).

—

Despite Direct Provision originally being established as a temporary, emergency measure, this system has been operating for 20 years. In March 2020, the Reception and Integration Agency (RIA), confirmed that the mean length of time spent in the asylum process by RIA residents was 23 months, with some children spending years in the system. Currently, 1,789 children are living in Direct Provision, with another 304 children living in emergency accommodation. Some children have been born into the system and are not aware of any other life other than institutionalised living.

Our report, launched today and entitled ‘Direct Provision’s Impact on Children: A Human Rights Analysis’, was researched and written by LLM students Róisín Dunbar, Neasa Candon, Angelica Shilova, Stacy Wrenn, Lauren Burke, Sien Crivits and Meghan Reid, in collaboration with the Movement of Asylum Seekers in Ireland (MASI) as part of the work of the Irish Centre for Human Rights’ Human Rights Law Clinic. The report examines how children’s human rights are being impacted by Direct Provision. The report was completed in June 2020, just prior to the new Government’s announcement that responsibility for Direct Provision would be transferred from the Minister for Justice and Equality to the Minister for Children, Disability, Equality and Integration. This report refers to the apparatus that has been in existence up to June 2020. 

The contents of this report demonstrate that Ireland’s practice of institutionalising children and families in private, commercially operated Direct Provision settings is systematically infringing children’s rights to health and development, education and respect for private and family life. It highlights the legal protection gaps that urgently need addressing, the deficiencies in the incoming National Standards (to be enforced in January 2021), and the need to end the system of Direct Provision. Focusing on the rights of children in the system, this research adds to existing literature, with few reports having previously highlighted children’s experiences. Children’s rights are analysed under four chapters:

1. Health and Development, which highlights for examples, access to health services and goods, food and nutrition, recreation, and sexual exploitation.
2. Education
3. Private and Family Life
4. Accountability and Child Protection

A glaring similarity to past systemic failures in child protection in Ireland, according to this report’s analysis, is that the structures of accountability and state oversight to prevent child abuse, neglect and exploitation within the institutional settings of Direct Provision are weak. 

The incoming National Standards are analysed under each Chapter. They are incomplete, inconsistent, insufficiently co-ordinated and non-transparent. We maintain that they will prove insufficient to address the range of issues faced by children in Direct Provision. The report concludes that asylum-seeking children do not have full access to their rights under domestic, European and international instruments equal to Irish citizens. We believe that the failure of the State to protect the rights of children in Direct Provision amounts to discrimination. 

This report forms part of a larger project conducted by the group to raise awareness about the Direct Provision system. The ‘Ask about Direct Provision’ project was conducted to make Direct Provision a key issue for the General Election 2020. The aim was to gather responses from candidates on their position on Direct Provision. Responses are documented on our website: https://askaboutdirectprovision.wordpress.com/.

We delivered this report to the Minister for Children, Disability, Equality, Integration and Youth on the 11^th of November. Minister O’Gorman has previously committed to “ending direct provision and extending equality to all our citizens”. We hope that this report will aid the Minister with this commitment. 

An earlier format of this report was submitted to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child for preparation of Ireland’s List of Issues Prior to Reporting. The Committee has requested that Ireland provide information on special protection measures for asylum-seeking, refugee and migrant children, including to replace the system of Direct Provision.

We are extremely grateful to Adjunct Professor Emily Logan, for her foreword to the report and we concur with her words that: ‘To sub contract any service to a non-state actor, for or not-for profit, is not to sub contract the state’s obligation for vindicating the rights of children living in Direct Provision.’ We are also indebted to Evgeny Shtorn and MASI for their support and guidance on the research and the drafting of this report.