Aspects of direct provision centres ‘must be addressed’

The Government should demand that private companies provide “humane” accommodation to asylum seekers given it is paying them €43m to operate direct provision centres.

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission also said the Department of Justice must address “unlawful” aspects of direct provision centres, including intrusive “house rules”, and the absence of independent complaint procedures.

Chief commissioner Emily Logan said reform of the entire system — highlighted by last week’s report of the Working Group on Direct Provision — was entirely dependent on the enactment of the International Protection Bill.

Speaking on RTÉ radio, she said Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald had indicated that legislation enacting the bill would be introduced this year.

Ms Logan said the bill would set up a single application procedure. This would set a time limit of 12 months for a decision on asylum, compared to the average of five years or more that people were languishing in direct provision.

In the meantime, she said the Department of Justice needed to address other issues highlighted in the working group report.

She said the High Court had determined in November that house rules in centres were unlawful in that they interfered with the right to private and family life. Another unlawful issue was the lack of an independent complaints procedure. Ms Logan called on the Government to extend the remit of both the Ombudsman and the Children’s Ombudsman to cover this area.

She also called on the department to examine the contracts it has with private companies operating the centres.

“They are not demanding. For that kind of expenditure, of €43m, it is absolutely reasonable to expect a greater service” than the current “very, very basic accommodation”,” Ms Logan said.

She said they should be required to deliver “a much more respectful, humane, and dignified existence for people in direct provision”.

Ms Fitzgerald, meanwhile, said she had introduced a draft bill which would cut the current five layers to the asylum application system to just two, which would reduce the possibilities of judicial review accordingly.