ENDING DIRECT PROVISION | 1

ENDING
DIRECT
PROVISION

gra Fianna Fil Asylum Seeker Policy

ENDING DIRECT PROVISION | 3

Executive Summary
Direct Provision is the current system in Ireland of housing asylum seekers in state-provided accommodation while they wait for their applications to be processed. Introduced in the year 2000, the system was
envisioned as part of a 6 month determination process. However, as asylum applications have stretched
as far as five years or more it has become clearer and clearer that the system is not capable of performing
in a just and humane way.

The key issue in the debate is the

right of asylum seekers to work
while waiting for affirmation of their
refugee status or the granting of
leave to stay. While European Union
member states have approved a
common European asylum policy
that includes this right, Ireland lags
behind with government ministers
recently citing concerns that such
a system would pull economic
migrants to Ireland. Meanwhile
Ireland has volunteered to receive
600 asylum seekers from Europes
borders to help relieve pressure
on Italy and Greece.
gra believes that it is time that
Ireland joined Europe in applying a

The key issue in the debate is

the right of asylum seekers
to work.
consistent and just policy towards
refugees and that the focus must
shift away from wielding the
injustices of direct provision as a
deterent and instead look towards
creating a humane shelter for
these victims of tragic violence
and terror.
In order to do this, gra believes
that once-off emergency measures
must be taken to clear the backlog
of applications in the system, that

we must opt in fully to all the

CEAS directives and that a more
efficient judicial process must be
put in place. The most important
part of this policy is that the right to
work after 6 months in the system
must be granted to asylum seekers
in order to protect their right to
basic dignity.
Ian Woods
Conor Kelly
Will Prasifka

4 | ENDING DIRECT PROVISION

Direct Provision
in Principle
Direct provision was introduced to Ireland on April 10th 2000. Originally envisaged as a short term solution
and that each applicant would get through the process in as little as six months. The system included full bed
and board in private contracted accommodation with an allowance of 19.10 / week for adults and 9.60 /
week per child [1]. No other welfare payments were made available to asylum seekers though the system did
provide for medical care and education up until the age of 18. Most notably, applicants were not granted the
right to work while awaiting their refugee status.

ENDING DIRECT PROVISION | 5

Direct Provision
in Practice
In April 2000 there were 394 applicants and by 2014 there were
4,309 of which a third were children [2]. Over 1,600 people have
been in the system for 5 or more years and over 3,000 have been in
the process for 2 or more years [3]. 59% of applicants have been in
the direct provision system for 3 years, 31% for 5 years and 9% for
over 7 years.

4309

Even voluntary return is not an option for many, given limited financial
means and the fact that the International Organisation for Migration
is not permitted by the Department of Justice to assist a person on
a Deportation Order.

in 2014.

Direct provision accommodation is the responsibility of the Reception and

Integration agency (RIA), which is overseen by the Irish Naturalisation
and Immigration Service (INIS). Allowances are meted out through
the Department of Social Protection and the allowance has not been
altered since its introduction in 2000 [4]. There is no legislative
basis for the system of direct provision and the system operates on
a combination of administrative decisions and Ministerial circulars.
This informal system is riven with flaws; no formal practice for the
assignment of individuals to reception centres exists and the RIA
claims that this informal practice is based on family composition
and matched against optimal available accommodation [5]. No
specific reception centres exists for vulnerable applicant groups e.g.
unaccompanied minors or torture victims in need of psychological
care. While reception centres are managed by external contractors, no
independent appeals process exists for asylum seekers to raise issues

applicants

33%
were children.

6 | ENDING DIRECT PROVISION

with the accommodation. The quality of reception centres has also

been challenged in numerous reports, for example in 2007 the Human
Rights Commissioner noted with concern reports of overcrowding and
lack of private spaces where children grow up without any recreational
space in effect confined to their shared bedroom [6].
Direct provision has been openly criticised in recent years by Emily
OReilly the current European Ombudsman and Supreme Court
justice Catherine McGuinness [7]. Reports from the Irish Human
Rights Commission, the Ombudsman for Children, and the Special
Rapporteur for Children have all found the direct provision system
to be significantly damaging. Doras Luimn, a Limerick based agency
which supports all migrants in the Midwest has described the system
as one which has taken its toll on men, women and children many
of whom are at breaking point due to a structure which creates
delays, forced idleness, poverty, cramped and unsuitable conditions,
uncertainty and the threat of deportation [8]. Furthermore, NGOs
have reported multiple informal attempts at clearing the massive
application backlog.

It has taken
its toll on men,
women and
children many
of whom are
at breaking
point.

ENDING DIRECT PROVISION | 7

International
Background
What is a Refugee?
A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country
of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling
to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not
having a nationality and being outside the country of his former
habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing
to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
Article 1 of the 1951 Refugee Convention

In the aftermath of World War II and the massive displacement of civilians it caused, the international
community wrote the Geneva conventions and defined what a refugee is, their rights and the obligations
of the states where they seek asylum. Later, the scope of the convention was expanded by the 1967
Protocol to take account of the problem of displacement as it expanded throughout the world in the
20th century. The difference between refugees and normal migrants is that refugees are forced to flee
because of a threat of persecution and because they lack protection in their own country. A migrant, in
comparison, may leave his/her country for many reasons that are not related to persecution and they
continue to enjoy the protection of his or her own government, even when abroad.

8 | ENDING DIRECT PROVISION

This protocol is still used today to determine the rights of refugees and
is applied in Irish law in conjunction with EU regulations dealing with
refugees and asylum seekers. The Dublin regulation was negotiated
under Irelands EU presidency and determines the EU member state
responsible for asylum claims and enables the transfer of asylum
seekers to the responsible member state, usually the state through
which the asylum seeker first entered the EU [10]
What are our obligations to refugees?
Refugees cannot be removed from the State unless their case has
been dealt with in accordance with the Dublin III regulation, which
means that they must be given the opportunity to present their
case fully to the Refugee Applications Commissioner or the Refugee
Appeals Tribunal as appropriate. They must be given legal assistance
in assembling and presenting their case as well as accommodation,
welfare and health care while the application is considered.
Furthermore, the convention stipulates that:
The Contracting State shall accord to refugees lawfully
staying in their territory the most favourable treatment
accorded to nationals of a foreign country in the same
circumstance, as regards the right to engage in wage earning
employment [9]
gra believes that the direct provision system is a violation of the
spirit, if not the letter of this convention.

Refugees
cannot be
removed
from the
State unless
their case
has been
dealt with in
accordance
with the
Dublin III
regulation

ENDING DIRECT PROVISION | 9

Worldwide
Refugee Crisis
ILLEGAL BORDER CROSSINGS BY ROUTE

According to the European Border Management Agency Frontex, more than 220,000 migrants without
papers came to Europe by sea and nearly 67,000 of these were Syrians fleeing the brutal civil war that
has consumed much of the country. Other key migrant groups were refugees fleeing civil war in Mali and
a brutal regime in Eritrea. This mixed flow migration includes both refugees seeking asylum in Europe and

10 | ENDING DIRECT PROVISION

economic migrants. Most migrants are coming through a number of key

routes, Northward through the Sahara to Northern Libya or from the
Middle East to Egypt or Turkey and from there to Lampedusa, Sicily or
Greece. According to the UNHCR, of the 9 million Syrians that have fled
the civil war, over 3 million have fled to Syrias immediate neighbours
(Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq), 6.5 million are internally displaced
and under 150,000 Syrians have declared asylum in the EU. The EU
have pledged to resettle a further 33,000 Syrians and the vast majority
of these sports (28,500) are pledged by Germany [12].
This high demand for sea crossings fuelled by a record number of
successful entries have led to new approaches by organised crime
groups in Turkey with the use of large cargo containers being reported
to ferry migrants to Italy since September 2014 and has become a
multimillion euro business and is likely to be repeated along other
coasts. As of last year the land route through the Balkans to Hungary
became the third most populous migrant route.

3,400
dead or missing
at sea in 2014

2,800

According to Frontex, most migrants making the Mediterranean crossing

were Syrians and Eritreans departing from the Libyan cost and the
vast majority were rescued by border control authorities after making
a distress call. The boats used are frail and overcrowded with limited
fuel to maximise profits. Despite efforts by the Italian Navy and the
JO Hermes/ Triton around 3,400 people died or went missing at sea
in 2014 and 2,800 since the beginning of 2015. Italian officials have
estimated that about 600,000 people are awaiting their turn to make
the crossing on the Libyan coast which is another 3 years worth of
migration even at the high rates of the last two years [13]

at beginning of

In 2014 Italy, in agreement with the European Union decided to end

its Mediterranean migrant rescue operation - Mare Nostrum - after it
had saved the lives of tens of thousands of people at sea. While hoped
that this would prove a deterrent to continued crossings, migration has
continued unabated with an increase in deaths at sea, with Amnesty
International estimating that as many as 900 people disappeared at
sea since operation downgrade [14].

waiting to cross

2015.

600k
three years worth
of migration.

ENDING DIRECT PROVISION | 11

Fig 2. Syrian refugee mother comforts her children, after being rescued from
a fishing boat carrying 219 people who had hoped to reach Europe. They are
among millions uprooted by war. In 2014 alone, 13.9 million people became
newly displaced, four times the number in 2010. (UNHCR / A. DAmato)

In response to this tragic surge, the EU has tripled funding for its border control operation and member
states have dispatched six ships, three airplanes and two helicopters to patrol the Mediterranean until
September 2015. Ireland has taken part in this operation with the LE Eithne rescuing more than 3,200
migrants between May and July 2015 [15].

12 | ENDING DIRECT PROVISION

Common European
Asylum System
(CEAS)
The Common European Asylum System is a series of directives negotiated between member states to ensure
that EU member states are fully compliant with the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
1951 and the New York protocol of 1967. It is designed to make asylum policy consistent and fair across EU
member states and addresses issues in asylum policy brought about by the Schengen Agreement. It consists
of the Dublin and Eurodac regulations and directives on Reception, Qualification and Procedures [16].

CEAS in Practice
Each applicants fingerprints are taken and sent to a database called Eurodac. These data are used to help
identify the country responsible for the asylum application.
Asylum applicants receive material reception conditions (Reception Conditions Directive)
An asylum applicant is interviewed by a case worker trained in EU law, with the help of an interpreter, to
determine whether he/she may qualify for refugee status or subsidiary protection (Qualification Directive
and Asylum Procedures Directive)
Refugee or subsidiary protection status is granted which gives the person certain rights, such as access to
a residence permit, the labour market and healthcare (Qualification Directive).
Or Asylum is not granted at first instance, but this refusal may be appealed in court. If this refusal is
confirmed the applicant may be returned to his/her country of original or transit.

Related European Union Directives

Since 1999 the EU has been working to create a Common European Asylum System and improve the current
legislative framework. (CEAS Report)

ENDING DIRECT PROVISION | 13

Recast Asylum Procedures Directive aims to ensure fairer, quicker and better quality asylum decisions;
asylum seekers with special needs will receive necessary supports to help them explain their case,
specifically victims of torture and unaccompanied minors
Revised Reception Conditions Directive ensures that there are human reception conditions for asylum
seekers which protect their fundamental rights and that detention is only applied as a measure of last
resort.
Revised Qualification Directive clarifies the grounds for granting international protection and will
make asylum decisions more robust. It will also improve the access to rights and integration measures
for beneficiaries of international protection.
Revised Eurodac Regulation allows law enforcement to access the EU database, in strict circumstances,
of the fingerprints of asylum seekers under strictly limited circumstances in order to prevent, detect or
investigate serious crimes such as murder or terrorist.
Revised Dublin Regulation protects asylum seekers during the process of establishing the state responsible for their application and creates a system to detect issues in national asylum systems.

EU Voluntary Relocation Scheme

While these new directives form a roadmap toward a more consistent and just asylum process, they do
little to address the needs of EU members currently inundated with asylum requests due to their peripheral
location. As such, the EU has triggered an emergency response system envisaged under Article 78(3) of
the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and has introduced a temporary relocation scheme to
relocate asylum seekers arriving in EU states throughout the EU in order to relieve high strained borders.
A distribution key has been drawn up which allocates asylum seekers on quantitative objective basis
throughout the EU according to size of population, total GDP and average number of spontaneous asylum
applications and the number of refugees already resettled per 1 million inhabitants since 2010, as well as
the unemployment rate of the country. Although Ireland has the right to opt out of the scheme, the government has decided to take up a commitment to an extra 600 migrants [17].

14 | ENDING DIRECT PROVISION

Failures in
the Irish System
As the refugee crisis intensifies and the effects reverberate throughout the
Europe and as Ireland commits to providing refuge for more asylum seekers, the
failings of the current system must be fixed or else we are failing not just our
international obligations but also our moral obligations to treat fellow human
beings seeking asylum within our borders in a humane and decent fashion. gra
is highly critical of the governments failure to enact any meaningful reform in
their 4 years in office. The resignation of key groups such as the Irish Refugee
Council from the working group investigating direct provision must show that
the government is not serious about meaningful reform.
Former Justice Minister Alan Shatter when in opposition described the system as
comparable to prisoner of war camps and said it was not the type of approach
that a civilized Western European democracy should apply in any situation.
In government he described the system as the most economical way of
providing for those who are effectively in the country illegally [1]. This blatant
hypocrisy is just the latest in a series of promises broken by the coalition and
gra unequivocally rejects justifying direct provision and the violation of human
rights on the basis of cost.
gra agrees with the IRC that any bills dealing with reform of Direct Provision should
not be used as an enforcement tool which treats people as economic migrants
instead of refugees fleeing adverse situations to whom we have internationally
recognised obligations. Asylum is a right and those seeking to exercise that
right should not be punished. However the single procedure envisaged in the
governments bill is concerned with speeding up decisions relating to deportation
rather than early identification of people in need [18]
Furthermore, these issues stem from the fact that Ireland has opted out of

ENDING DIRECT PROVISION | 15

participating in revised laws negotiated under our own presidency in 2013 which
form CEAS. Ireland has also failed to transpose the EU reception directive relating
to asylum policy as of the 20th of July. This directive (2013/33/EU) lays down
minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers including the areas of
clothing, food, financial allowance, family unity, medical and psychological care
as well as access to education. Most importantly it ensures that asylum seekers
have the right to access the labour market and vocational training 6 months after
lodgement of their application. The Directive allows for member states to control
the type, duration and qualifications needed for work in each case. Included are
also special provisions to ensure the medical and social wellbeing of women and
children throughout the process of applying for asylum [3,4].

Fig 3. L Niamh in Malta to refuel & resupply ahead of her

Search and Rescue Operations in the Mediterranean
(Irish Embassy, Malta)

16 | ENDING DIRECT PROVISION

Problems
in the Process
The key problem with Direct Provision is the length of time spent by asylum
seekers in the system. If Direct Provision were a temporary condition lasting only
a few months, many of the hardships associated with it would be acceptable. Any
proposal that aims to reform the asylum system has to deal with delays inherent
in the system itself.
It should therefore be understood that any reform that proposes expediting the
asylum process is not necessarily pro-asylum seeker but early identification of
asylum seekers for approval is in their interest. Any single-procedure system
introduced cannot only by concerned with speeding deportation and for those
concerned with the often cited pull factors, a fair and efficient system capable
of quickly processing claims is one of the best ways of discouraging economic
migrants while also in the best interests of refugees.
Table 2.
Asylum seekers who have
applications refused under 13(4)
b can lodge an appeal within 15
days. Applicants who are refused
under section 13(5) means that
the Commissioner has made
a recommendation that the
applicant should not be granted
refugee status and has included
in his report a finding under
section 13(6). An appeal to the
Refugee Appeals Tribunal must
be taken within 10 days.

ENDING DIRECT PROVISION | 17

The key problem with the asylum system as it presently stands is that the process
comes in multiple stages and that each stage is amenable to judicial review. Those
seeking asylum must first apply for refugee status to the Office of the Refugee
Applications Commissioner. Refugee status is defined in the Refugee Act 1996
and consists of a well-founded fear of being persecuted due to race, religion,
nationality, political opinion or membership of a social group. It is a narrow legal
definition and most applications fail to meet the threshold. If such an application
is refused then there is an option of appeal to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. The
only way of appealing a finding of this body is by way of judicial review. Judicial
review examines the process by which the decision was made rather than the
merits of the decision itself. Only once an application for refugee status has been
completed can an applicant apply for Subsidiary Protection. Again this process
is also amenable to judicial review. While the efficiency of the court system has
improved in recent years, it can still take up to four years for an application for
judicial review to be determined by the courts. Even if all of the above applications
are denied, it can take years for the government to carry out a deportation order.
The solution to the delays inherent in the asylum process is the establishment of
a unified system where applications for Refugee Status and Subsidiary Protection
are determined simultaneously. Furthermore such a process should also allow
for a determination as to whether an applicant should be able to remain in the
state on humanitarian grounds. The Government should provide criteria (through
legislation) on how such humanitarian applications should be determined. A
consistent and fair approach is needed.
With regard to delays in the judicial review process, one of the problems is that
all applications to judicially review asylum decisions must be on notice to the
State. Normally speaking, judicial review applications consist of two phases. The
first is an ex parte (i.e. the respondent, the state, is not notified of the hearing and
is not required to appear in court) application to a High Court judge for leave to
seek judicial review. Only once this is accepted will the matter go to full hearing.
In migration proceedings there is a requirement that all applications for leave to
seek judicial review must be on notice to the State. While intended to cut down on
the number of asylum judicial reviews, it has in fact had the opposite effect. There
are considerable delays (up to 27 months) in getting a date to make an application
for leave due to the volume of applications. Abolition of this requirement would
help speed up the process.

18 | ENDING DIRECT PROVISION

gra Proposals
gra proposes the following in order to ensure that Ireland can provide a humane a decent application
system to asylum seekers:
1. Removal of private operators from the direct provision system and a public body to be set up to administer the system after meaningful consultation with organisations representing asylum seekers and the
Childrens Ombudsman.
2. We demand an increase in the monetary allowance to asylum seekers in the direct provision system.
3. gra calls on the government to transpose the European Directive 2013/33/EU to bring our laws into
line with the minimum standards expected throughout Europe.
4. gra calls for a once-off amnesty for all asylum seekers in the system for longer than two years, through
the granting of leave to remain and a commitment to make a final decision within 6 months.
5. gra believes that the application process and the judicial review process must be reformed to speed
up the application process to prevent the build-up of applicants in the future.
6. We back the call of the IRC and Doras Luimn that people with outstanding leave to remain applications
should be granted it immediately in the following cases [20];

a. Families with school age children

b. Families with a child or children born in Ireland
c. Former separated children who have been moved into Direct Provision
d. Adult Spouses or partners of different nationalities
e. Adults or children with serious physical or mental health issues and their families
f. Adults who have been in the system for 2 years
g. Separated children who are in the care of the HSE where there is no realistic possibility of returning
them to care of their parents in their country of origin
h. Adults or children with close relatives who already have permission to reside in the state.

ENDING DIRECT PROVISION | 19

i. Adults or children from states to where there is no possibility of removal due to instability within
that country.
j. Women whose relationships have broken down as a result of violence (verbal or physical) in the State
who would be vulnerable on return

7. gra calls for the right to work for all asylum seekers after 6 months of their application for asylum.

Conclusion
gra believes that direct provision is a moral travesty that shows a callous disregard for the dignity of
vulnerable families and individuals seeking shelter and succour on our island. This system is another sad
chapter in Irelands demoralizing history of institutional abuse. For too long Ireland has treated asylum
seekers as criminals within its borders instead of as refugees fleeing torture, murder, rape and situations
unimaginable to those of us lucky enough to be living in Ireland.
As Ireland commits itself sheltering a new group of vulnerable and weary refugees over the next few years,
this country must commit to maintaining the basic minimum standards set out in the Common European
Asylum System. In order to do this, we must admit that the direct provision system has failed in its stated
aims and that without clearing the backlogs that have built up over the last 15 years, any new system will be
paralysed from the beginning. By clearing this backlog through swift and decisive action, we acknowledge
that some asylum seekers who do not meet our criteria for refugee status will be given leave to remain in
Ireland. However, gra believes that thit is a small price to pay to do justice to those whom have suffered
in the system for so many years and who continue to suffer today.
Asylum seekers in Ireland should receive the same rights in Ireland as they receive throughout the rest
of the EU and to this end gra demands that the government opts in to the CEAS. gra believes that the
right to work is fundamental to human dignity and that denying asylum seekers this right after 6 months
is a breach of their rights.

20 | ENDING DIRECT PROVISION

References
1. Griffin, Dan. (2014, 7 February) Long-term direct provision unsuitable for asylum seekers, Irish Times,
accessed 21/4/15; http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/long-term-direct-provision-unsuitablefor-asylum-seekers-1.1683547
2. Answer to PQ by Minister for Justice, Frances Fitzgerald (4/11/14)
3. The Economic and Social Research Institute (2014) The Organisation of Facilities for Asylum Seekers
in Ireland, www.ersi.ie, retrieved April 21, 2015 from: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/
networks/european_migration_network/reports/docs/emn-studies/11.ireland_national_report_receptionfacilities_en_version_feb2014_finals.pdf
4. European Commission (2008) Minimum Standards on the Reception of Applicants for Asylum in
Member States, www.europa.eu, retrieved April 21, 2015 from: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/
justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/l33150_en.htm
5. Joyce C. & Quinn E. The organisation of reception facilities for asylum seekers in Ireland European
Migration Network (EMN)
6. http://www.ombudsman.gov.ie/en/News/Speeches-Articles/2013/Asylum-Seekers-Wrong.html
7. Thornton, Liam. (2014, 3 April) More asylum seekers in Direct Provision than prisoners in jail, Irish
Times, accessed 21/4/15; http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/more-asylum-seekers-in-directprovision-than-prisoners-in-jail-1.1747679
8. Sheridan, Anne (2015) Ten years a slave to asylum system in Limerick, Limerick Leader http://www.
limerickleader.ie/news/local-news/ten-years-a-slave-to-asylum-system-in-limerick-1-6596373
9. United Nations Refugee Agency (1966) Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, New
York: United Nations
10. Regulation No. 604/2103

ENDING DIRECT PROVISION | 21

11. Frontex Annual Report (2015)

12. UNHCR Global Trends World at War (2015)
13. Lind D. The right to asylum: Why Europe has to take in migrants fleeing persecution Vox http://www.
vox.com/2015/4/22/8464623/asylum-refugees-law-europe
14. Amnesty International 2015 Europes Sinking Shame
15. Lynch S. Irish Times (2015) State will take 600 extra migrants in EU initiative (http://www.irishtimes.
com/news/social-affairs/state-will-take-600-extra-migrants-in-eu-initiative-1.2289128
16. Malmstrom C (2015) CEAS Report, European Commission
17. European Agenda on Migration (2015) http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-4957_en.htm
18. Irish Refugee Council, 30/3/2015 http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/news/the-heads-of-the-internationalprotection-bill-2015-raise-fundamental-issues-about-irelands-commitment-to-providing-protection-saysthe-irish-refugee-council/3896
19. Directive 2013/33/EU
20. Direct Provision: Framing an alternative reception system for people seeking international protection
(2014) Irish Refugee Council