Cause For Concern: Deficiencies Identified in The White Paper to End Direct Provision

The White Paper to End Direct Provision was drafted in the hopes of removing the blemish of Direct Provision. However, flaws in the roadmap to a system that promises equality and dignity concerns representatives of asylum Seekers.

“We haven’t seen anything being done … it’s technically there, but the question is, is it in practice? Are they following the recommendations of that White Paper? I feel that they are not”

Since the implementation of Direct Provision in 1999, the system has received harsh criticism from academic and legal commentators. Even being slated by the UN Human Rights Council for its callous neglect of asylum seekers applying for international protection.

Diana Siwela, a member of the Movement of Asylum Seekers in Ireland (MASI), understands the shortcomings of this flawed system all too well. Having left Zimbabwe, to escape unspeakable traumas, she came to Ireland hoping for a new beginning. Instead, she found herself in a system, which she describes, as “a continuation of the struggles you are already running away from”.

February, of this year, saw the publication of ‘The White Paper to End Direct Provision and Establish a New International Support Service’, the Irish government’s proposal to remove the blemish of Direct Provision, and implement an international protection system which promises to be “centred on a human rights and equality”. The announcement of this much needed reform has individuals, such as Diana, who are currently experiencing the system of Direct Provision, hopeful, yet understandably sceptical.

This proposal by government promises to remedy many of the questionable aspects of the dysfunctional system, such as reducing the lengthy processing of applications for International Protection, the removal of the private sector as operators of Direct Provision centres and replacing them with Approved Housing Bodies (AHBs) and not-for-profit organisations, and the integration of asylum seekers into Irish society “from day one”.

MASI released a statement concerning the White Paper. The group admits that there are some welcomed changes covered in the government’s proposal, such as an increase of income supports that are comparable to income supports granted to Irish nationals.

The statement also mentions the welcomed end to the shared living spaces for families. While interviewing Diana, she spoke about the awful conditions she and her family were forced to live under. She describes being “trapped” in a cramped single room with her husband and three kids, not even being allowed to leave the assigned quarters for fresh air.

However, MASI’s statement identifies the White Paper’s lack of transparency concerning the accommodation of single individuals. The White paper still hints at congregated settings for these individuals, creating an atmosphere of institutionalisation. It appears that these individuals will have to endure forced cohabitation with people they do not know, nor necessarily get along with.

MASI’s statement also identifies the fallacy of the government’s phrase of “integration from day one”. The Catherine Day group report provided a recommended that all asylum seekers whose applications for their asylum claim had not been processed and approved after 3 months, should be granted the right to work. However, the White Paper has not explicitly addressed this recommendation.

This does beg the question; how can an individual be integrated into a society “from day one” without the permission to work?

Diana came to this country with a degree in health sciences, however, due to her asylum seeker status, she is not able to use this qualification to secure employment. She is eager to contribute to Irish society, like many others that find themselves in the same situation.

She believes “a lot of talent is being wasted here in Direct Provision”. She arrived with a specialised degree, yet due to the red tape she cannot seek employment in her respective field.

She describes her frustrating position of employment: “I feel it is unfair, because there is this continuation of ‘othering’ asylum seekers. Someone with the same expertise as myself can get hired on a work permit, why can’t I be hired? We find ourselves basically having to start over. There is a mentality that you can either go work in a hotel or pursue a lower position. You already have level 8, now you are doing level 5”.

While Diana has a degree of hope that the White Paper may rectify some of these issues for others seeking International Protection in the future, she is understandably sceptical of the proposal’s implementation.

Government is already showing signs of falling behind their proposed schedule. This was seen by the government’s delay to provide driving licenses to asylum seekers.

Diana shares her concern that this may be a sign of further delays in reform promised by the White Paper. “We haven’t seen anything being done … it’s technically there, but the question is, is it in practice? Are they following the recommendations of that White Paper? I feel that they are not”.

Diana supports her opinion by referencing the aforementioned delay in driver’s licenses. “We were promised that something was going to be announced by the end of summer, but summer has passed, and nothing has been done”.

What seems like a relatively small change to most, it is a major difficulty for asylum seekers.

Diana clarifies this, “The issue with driver’s licences is a very serious to us. It’s a necessity. If you are depriving me of a driver’s license, you are depriving me of a means to get to work. You are giving me permission to work, but at the same time you won’t give me the means to go to work.”

Identifiable issues, such as these, do little to help foster a degree of trust in the Irish Government’s intentions for people in the system, like Diana. One can only hope that these issues can be rectified so that true reform of this flawed system can be implemented effectively in the outlined timeframe.