Direct Provision in a Time of Pandemic

Abstract

Direct Provision in a Time of Pandemic Patricia Brazil Introduction Direct provision was introduced in April 2000 as a system for meeting the basic welfare needs of asylum seekers by providing full bed and board in designated accommodation units and a weekly financial payment of €19.10 per adult and €9.60 per child. While it was not mandatory to live in direct provision, under the Refugee Act 1996 asylum seekers were prohibited by law from working while their applications were being processed. This meant that many had little choice but to live in the direct provision system, unless they had significant funds available to cover their accommodation and living expenses for the often lengthy duration of their asylum applications. From the time of its introduction, the system of direct provision was the subject of criticism across a range of areas. There were concerns about the living conditions in some direct provisions, including lack of privacy, overcrowding in some shared rooms, food quality, social isolation, and lack of access to services. Other issues included the length of time spent by some people living in direct provision and the impact of extended stays on people’s mental and physical health. Particular concerns were expressed about the impact on children of living long-term in direct provision. The McMahon Report in 20151 made a number of recommendations for reform of the direct provision system including in relation to living conditions in designated centres, improvements in supports available for protection applicants, and speeding up the determination process. Two high-profile court cases also impacted on the direct provision system: the High Court decision in CA v Minister for Justice2 led to the introduction of an independent complaints mechanism for persons living in direct provision, while the decision of the Supreme Court in NHV v Minister for Justice3 struck down the absolute prohibition on the right to work for asylum seekers. The Supreme Court decision in NHV ultimately led to Ireland’s decision to opt into the Recast Reception Conditions Directive, which sets out minimum standards for the reception of applicants for international protection. Despite some improvements to the direct provision system as a result Studies • volume 110 • number 440 407 of these developments, many criticisms remained. The weekly financial payment to those living in direct provision was not increased at all between 2000 and 2017, which meant that the value of the already minimal payment had actually decreased when inflation was taken into account. A report by NASC in 20174 highlighted that not all of the McMahon recommendations were implemented, including measures to address the backlog in processing protection applications and improvements in physical conditions in some direct provision centres. The Ombudsman’s Annual Report for 20195 noted a number of complaints related to the use of emergency accommodation as part of the direct provision system, sometimes in remote locations with limited access to services and supports. Direct provision and the pandemic As of March 2020, there were approximately 7400 people living in direct provision and emergency accommodation in Ireland. Concerns were quickly expressed about the impact of the pandemic on those living in direct provision, including the ability to maintain social distancing guidelines in light of the sometimes overcrowded living conditions. Direct provision was described by one infectious disease specialist as a powder keg for COVID-19, with calls from NGOs, including the Irish Refugee Council, to move people in at-risk categories to alternative locations in order to enable self-isolation and cocooning. The HSE extended access to temporary accommodation for healthcare workers living in direct provision, and the Department of Justice introduced a number of measures in light of the pandemic, including off-site self-isolation facilities. Nevertheless, MASI (Movement of Asylum Seekers in Ireland) issued a statement criticising the department’s response on the basis that the measures did not adequately address the situation of asylum seekers having difficulty observing social distancing. These concerns were brought into sharp relief when it emerged in April 2020 that a number of residents at the Skellig Star Hotel in Cahersiveen, a recently opened direct provision facility, had tested positive for COVID-19. There were reports that residents at the Skellig Star were...