Leaving the most vulnerable behind: Reflection on the Covid-19 pandemic and Direct Provision in Ireland

Abstract

We want to be outside, we want to be with friends and family, and we want to feel like we can go anywhere. We want to be free. (An Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, 2020)

The outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic has dramatically altered our daily routines, social interactions, workplaces, future plans and social norms. Social distancing, isolating or ‘cocooning’, and avoiding all non-essential contact are the ‘new normal’. In one of his speeches, An Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar highlights the frustration felt by many in adapting to the ‘new normal’ and the longing for simple things we all perhaps have taken for granted. This, he goes on to say, is necessary to stop the spread of the virus and to ‘shelter our most vulnerable and [to] protect them’ (Varadkar, 2020). However, the measures taken to protect those deemed vulnerable have not been extended to include some 7700 international protection applicants living in Direct Provision centres. In this short article, I reflect on how asylum seekers, one of the most vulnerable groups in Irish society, have been left behind during the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Direct Provision in Ireland

International protection applicants in Ireland are accommodated in a system known as Direct Provision. The system has been heavily criticised since its introduction in 2000 and numerous research studies have highlighted the negative impact it has had on international protection applicants (Filges et al., 2018; Gusciute et al., 2016). Many residents live in shared bedrooms and share common area amenities such as sanitary and eating facilities with other residents (Joyce and Quinn, 2014). Overall, little control and autonomy within the Direct Provision system impacts on the social and emotional well-being of international protection applicants (Ní Raghallaigh et al., 2016), and experiences of marginalisation and social exclusion often lead to social isolation and poor mental health (Fanning and Veale, 2004; O’Connor, 2003). Direct Provision was intended to provide short-term accommodation for international protection applicants; however, lengthy delays and the lack of an alternative system have resulted in many spending years in unsuitable accommodation. The outbreak of the current pandemic has further highlighted the unsuitability of Direct Provision.

Direct Provision and the Covid-19 outbreak

During the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Irish Government has issued several public health measures aimed at containing the spread of the coronavirus. These include implementation of social distancing of at least 2 meters from individuals not residing in one’s household and remaining in one’s accommodation with the exception of some permissible activities such as purchasing groceries, carrying out essential work and taking brief exercise (Department of Health and Department of the Taoiseach, 2020). While most of the population was coming to terms with the ‘new normal’, international protection applicants were left behind in Government’s approach to ‘shelter our most vulnerable’ (Varadkar, 2020).

Socially distancing and ‘cocooning’ are effectively impossible in accommodation settings with shared communal facilities such as kitchens and bathrooms. The Government has taken several measures in response to the pandemic, but the actions have been slow and minimal. Over 600 residents have been relocated to new accommodation to ensure social distancing (Department of Justice and Equality, 2020). However, it is hard to understand or even imagine how social distancing is possible in these new settings where up to three single people may be sharing a room. The relocation of 105 international protection applicants from Dublin to the Skellig Star Hotel in County Kerry (Lucey, 2020) is an example of attempting to do the impossible within unsuitable accommodation settings, as almost 25% of those relocated have since tested positive for the coronavirus.

As of May 2020, approximately 23,400 cases of coronavirus have been confirmed in the Republic of Ireland (Johns Hopkins University, 2020); this equates to approximately 0.5% of the total population. While the number of cases has been growing in the State since the outbreak of the pandemic, the public health measures such as ‘staying at home’ and social distancing seem to be working in ‘flattening the curve’ (Leahy and Kelly, 2020). However, this is not the case within Direct Provision centres. Social distancing and ‘cocooning’ are not possible due to the number of residents living in shared accommodation and due to capacity constraints within the centres themselves. Currently, there are 140 confirmed cases (Thomas, 2020); equating to 1.9% of the total population resident within Direct Provision centres, thus highlighting that individuals in this setting a more vulnerable in contracting Covid-19. Could this have been avoided? A plan which recognises that any residential setting where clusters can easily form is at particular risk to an outbreak could have mitigated these risks from the outset. Unfortunately, in the current context, it is likely that cases within Direct Provision will continue to increase unless alternative measures are put in place.

Social distancing and other measures have also had social, health and economic impacts on Irish society. There has been an increase in people reporting feeling lonely and experiencing mental health problems such as anxiety and depression (Maynooth University, 2020). In addition, due to the Covid-19-related economic impact, the unemployment rate has increased to 28% (Central Statistics Office, 2020). In the case of international protection applicants, these impacts are amplified. International protection applicants experience marginalisation and social exclusion while in the Direct Provision centres (O’Connor, 2003) and it is likely that in the current pandemic the feelings of social exclusion may increase further with potential for long-lasting mental health impacts. While we grapple on how to adjust to working from home, studying online and rearranging our daily routines to fit with the ‘new normal’, international protection applicants are asked to do the impossible. How can one work from home when sharing a room with others? How can a student study or do assignments in a congregated living space environment? A small proportion of international protection applicants who are permitted to work are most likely to fall in one of the two categories: either working in services deemed essential as frontline staff or in precarious employment which has ceased due to Covid-19. In the case of the former, these individuals are particularly vulnerable to contracting the virus and largely depend on non-governmental organisations to source alternative housing so that they can continue to provide an essential service. In the case of the latter, if they reside in Direct Provision centres, they are not entitled to the weekly pandemic payment of 350 euro and instead receive a weekly allowance of 38.80 euro. The general rules which apply to social welfare payments have been relaxed in order to extend the net of safety to those who have lost their jobs due to Covid-19 and include nationals from outside the European Economic Area, students, self-employed and part-time workers. However, international protection applicants are once again excluded from this safety net.

Reflection on the future

To re-state from Varadkar’s speech ‘[w]e want to be outside, we want to be with friends and family, and we want to feel like we can go anywhere’. We all look forward to lifting of measures and slowly returning to our normal lives and routines, as Irish society and the economy starts to re-open. Gatherings with family and friends, domestic holidays, partial return to offices, schools and universities all seem possible in the not so distant future. However, there is no return to normal for international protection applicants residing in Direct Provision centres. Isolated, but without the possibility to self-isolate, international protection applicants will continue to live in unsuitable, overcrowded accommodation at high risk of contracting the virus. What happens if there is a second wave of the virus? Or when the pandemic is over, will this be yet another failure on the behalf of the State to protect its most vulnerable? If we have really set out to protect our most vulnerable then surely Direct Provision centres should have been considered as priority areas when implementing measures to prevent and delay the spread of Covid-19. Perhaps the distinction lies between us and them? The Government’s approach to protect ‘our most vulnerable’ clearly demarks who is considered vulnerable but more importantly who belongs and is part of ‘us’. Perhaps there is a silver lining and the pandemic will finally prompt a reform to Direct Provision centres? Unfortunately, this is unlikely in the context of the shrinking economy and high unemployment levels. As large parts of Irish society continue to return to some normality, the socially excluded, often forgotten and marginalised international protection applicants will continue to live in constrained, overcrowded settings with no sign of return of normality in the foreseeable future.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Egle Gusciute

References

Central Statistics Office (2020) Monthly unemployment, April 2020. Available at: www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/mue/monthlyunemploymentapril2020/ (accessed 14 May 2020).

Department of Health and Department of the Taoiseach (2020) Public health measures in place until 12 April to prevent spreading COVID-19. Available at: www.gov.ie/en/publication/cf9b0d-new-public-health-measureseffective-now-to-prevent-further-spread-o/#the-only-reasons-you-can-leave-your-home (accessed 8 April 2020).

Department of Justice and Equality (2020) Statement by the Department of Justice and Equality on the Ombudsman’s commentary on Direct Provision 2019. Available at: www.gov.ie/en/press-release/a4ae4d-statement-by-the-department-of-justice-and-equality-on-the-ombudsman/ (accessed 14 May 2020).

Fanning

Veale

(2004) Child poverty as public policy: Direct Provision and asylum seeker children in the Republic of Ireland. Childcare in Practice 10(3): 241–251.

Filges

Montgomery

Kastrup

(2018) The impact of detention on the health of asylum seekers: A systematic review. Research on Social Work Practice 28(4): 399–414.

Gusciute

Arnold

Quinn

(2016) Integration of Beneficiaries of International Protection into the Labour Market: Policies and Practices in Ireland. Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute.

Johns Hopkins University (2020) Covid-19 map. Available at: www.coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html (accessed 14 May 2020).

Joyce

Quinn

(2014) The Organisation of Reception Facilities for Asylum Seekers in Ireland. Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute.

Leahy

Kelly

(2020) Coronavirus: Warning over rate of growth as 13 more die in Republic. The Irish Times, 3 April 2020. Available at: www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/coronavirus-warning-over-rate-of-growthas-13-more-die-in-republic-1.4219492 (accessed 8 April 2020).

10.

Lucey

(2020) Locals take legal action to close Direct Provision centre in Cahersiveen. The Irish Times, 13 May 2020. Available at: www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/locals-take-legal-action-to-close-direct-provision-centre-in-cahersiveen-1.4252727 (accessed 14 May 2020).

11.

Maynooth University (2020) COVID-19 mental health survey by Maynooth University and Trinity College finds high rates of anxiety. Available at: www.maynoothuniversity.ie/news-events/covid-19-mental-health-survey-maynooth-university-and-trinity-college-finds-high-rates-anxiety (accessed 14 May 2020).

12.

Ní Raghallaigh

Foreman

Feeley

(2016) Transitioning from Direct Provision to Life in the Community: The Experiences of Those who have been Granted Refugee Status, Subsidiary Protection or ‘Leave to Remain' in Ireland. Dublin: University College Dublin.

13.

O’ Connor

(2003) Direct Discrimination? An Analysis of the Scheme of Direct Provision in Ireland. Dublin: Free Legal Advice Centres.

14.

Thomas

(2020) ‘We’ve been firefighting’: Inside the State’s response to Covid-19 in Direct Provision. The Journal, 10 April 2020. Available at: www.thejournal.ie/weve-been-firefighting-inside-the-states-response-to-covid-19-in-direct-provision-5095029-May2020/ (accessed 14 May 2020).

15.

Varadkar

(2020) Speech of An Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar T.D., update on COVID-19. Available at: www.merrionstreet.ie/en/News-Room/Speeches/Speech_of_An_Taoiseach_Leo_Varadkar_T_D_Update_on_COVID-19.html (accessed 14 May 2020).