Direct Provision ; Will Common Sense Ever Prevail?

by Michelle Mitchell

 In my previous article for ROI against Racism I spoke of Direct Provision and its implications for the lives of those who are forced reply on it as a system for survival in Ireland. As this is very current issue in the media at the moment I would like to address the issue of the cost of direct provision in Ireland. Early this week The Irish Examiner published that ‘Direct Provision Contractors receive €5m each year in state fees’. Therefore in total last year Direct Provision has cost the state €53m to support the 4,364 people who rely on it. There is no denying that this is a substantial amount of money for any government to spend but particularly if the country they are running is in economic recession as Ireland is at the moment. Therefore why the government is choosing to invest such an amount of money in a system that dehumanizes and essentially imprisons people, I simply cannot understand. Surely this money could be invested more wisely and with sincere goals for equality and social change in mind.

The lack of available rental properties is one reason why asylum seekers, who despite being granted Irish citizenship are being forced to survive on Direct Provision. Therefore the logical solution to a problem such as this is for the government to increase spending in social housing schemes and rent supplement along with increasing rent supplement thresholds. Now, I am not an economist but I do foresee that if this were to occur, what would transpire are many long term advantages for both the person in receipt of direct provision and the government alike. As a sociologist what I can predict is that when an asylum seeker no longer relies on direct provision and has a fixed abode they are then in a position to secure employment and up skilling opportunities which they will utilize (despite some racially motivated ideologies). This in effect increases their assimilation and integration in Irish society and hence the racial social divide that currently exists is in a prime condition to weaken and narrow. In terms of parliamentarian benefits, economic contributions in the form of taxes and less overall reliance on the Irish government for living support from ex direct provision recipients can only serve to boost the Irish economy which consequently provides numerous advantages for the government.

Speaking this week, Minister for State for New Communities Culture and Equality, Aodhán O Riordáin described the implementation of Direct Provision as a ‘regrettable periods in Irish History’, publically admitting that this system does not work. Protests were also held this week with texts on placards from asylum seekers stating that the want ‘the right to integrate’, believing that direct provision does not allow them to do this. Thus I would like to conclude this piece by proposing that instead of contractors earning a large income on a suppressive system by receiving money from a government that claims poverty every day, which this money is invested into providing homes for asylum seekers. As previously stated I argue that this can be achieved by a restructuring of social housing and rent supplement policies. Perhaps the large amount of “ghost estates” that need completion would be an area for consideration to facilitate this?