The majority of asylum seekers coming to Ireland are from countries, which do not feature on the main countries of origin in other Member states. In 1999 and 2000, the top countries of origin in other Member States included Yugoslavia FR, Iraq and Afghanistan. In accordance with the figures provided by the Refugee Applications Commissioner for the period from January to March 2001, the majority of asylum seekers in Ireland came from Nigeria, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine, and Croatia. 

All persons in Ireland who are successfully recognised as refugees under the 1951 Geneva Convention are granted the right to live and work in the State. These are normally referred to as Convention refugees. This category refers to people who independently entered the State to seek asylum and, having had their applications for asylum examined by the Irish authorities, were granted Refugee Status. The table below details how many such successful applications were granted refugee status.

Entitlements

On 26 July 1999, the Government announced that asylum seekers resident in Ireland for more than 12 months would be eligible for work.  This however only applies to asylum seekers who had lodged their application by the 26th July 1999. Asylum seekers arriving after this date are not entitled to work.  This despite recommendations from various NGO bodies that the right to work to be granted to asylum seekers after six months as is the case in many EU states. This position has also been supported by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU), IBEC, and by church bodies in Ireland. However the Irish Government has been steadfast in its refusal of this measure citing the following reasons:

• “The granting of the right to work would be unquestionable an enormous pull factor in terms of people coming to seek asylum here.”
• Asylum seekers only have temporary permission to remain in the State pending the determination of their application. It is essential, not only for our immigration and employment policies, that there should not be the possibility that people might consider applying for asylum as a means of circumventing normal immigration control.
• Indiscriminate clearance for all asylum seekers to work would undermine the work permit system. It is inappropriate that the State should put some non-nationals through the process of acquiring visas, work permits etc., while allowing those who enter illegally a right to work without going through any formalities. [Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform]

In April 2000 a policy of Direct Provision/Dispersal was introduced. In most cases, people seeking asylum were ‘dispersed’ to various centres around the country arising in part at least from a shortage of accommodation in Dublin. They are given room and board, a medical card and reduced Supplementary Welfare Allowance of 19.05 Euro for adults and 9.52 Euro per child per week. Asylum seekers who do not come under the Direct Provision/ Dispersal regulations are entitled to full Supplementary Welfare payments and rent allowance. 

School attendance is compulsory for children between 6 and 16 years of age and is free.

In Ireland, leave to remain has also been granted to those asylum seekers that are parents of an Irish born child. Irish citizenship is the entitlement of anyone born on the island of Ireland and following a Supreme Court decision in 1987 (Fajujonu case), the parents of an Irish born child were also granted leave to remain. Currently, people granted leave to remain on the basis of having an Irish born child are also permitted to work however there are presently two cases before the Irish courts which may see the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, challenge the rights of parents of Irish born children to remain in the State.  

Conclusions

In particular, critics of the Nigeria agreement have alleged that Irish aid funding of development programmes in Nigeria have been interlinked to the implementation of the agreement.  These accusations have been strongly denied by the government who state categorically, “there is absolutely no question of Ireland’s aid being dependent upon the implementation of the repatriation agreement”.  Motivations aside the “substantive” development cooperation with Nigeria, which the government states is focusing on basic needs and poverty reduction, have proved equally difficult to assess and report on.  According to the Annual Report of 2000, Ireland Aid presently does not fund any projects that are aimed at people who have been repatriated to Nigeria. As for “the provision of skills acquisition and training” for those persons being repatriated as stipulated in the agreement, there presently are no programmes established, funded, or seemingly encouraged by the government in dealing with even the most basic aspirations of asylum seekers in the state. 

While emphasising the commitment of the Irish government to meeting Ireland’s international Treaty obligations in relation to the protection of genuine refugees, the State has underlined the importance of tackling in a concerted manner the increased trend in illegal immigration which is affecting all EU States including Ireland and to which these Agreements will make an important contribution.

Voluntary Assisted Return

IOM seeks to be governments’ primary partner in return.  The Organization offers core activities in each of the three chronological stages of returns: pre-departure, transportation and post-arrival.  Projects may include information dissemination, counselling, medical assistance, travel allowance, and return grants, transport assistance, reintegration and monitoring. 

The IOM Dublin Office was established in 2001 and is presently carrying out a pilot country assisted return programme within Ireland funded by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. 

This programme shall primarily benefit asylum seekers wishing to return to either Romania or Nigeria, but who do not have the means to do so.  The IOM is offering individuals advice and counselling, along with further assistance such as air transportation.  IOM is committed to the notion that the returnee’s rights are respected, and that their departure and re-entry to their home country is well informed, voluntary, dignified and safe.  They are also providing out-reach work in informing concerned agencies and asylum seekers. Upon meeting with the IOM representatives in Dublin, they stressed that the IOM supported voluntary returnee programmes in Ireland were still very much at a pilot stage.  In Ireland the programme does not differentiate between rejected asylum seekers, trafficked migrants, labour migrants or qualified nationals.  The supported returnees are completely voluntary up to the point of departure.  However, it is not within the legal remit of IOM to assist people who have been issued with deportation orders by the State.When somebody is issued a deportation order they are not passed on to the IOM, who can only assist by its mandate, that of a voluntary return.

 IOM do look to programmes, which strengthen institutions, which would provide employment and support for those returning home under the voluntary assisted return.  However, the budget of the IOM is apparently severely restricted and it is not clear whether much can be done by the IOM in the area of institutional capacity building and employment. 

Since the launch of the return programme the IOM have successfully supported the return of 13 refugees.

Conclusions

With little institutional relationships between the IOM and Irish agencies implementing development programmes in Nigeria or Romania (the 2 countries under the pilot scheme) it is difficult to see how institutional capacity support in the countries concerned could be developed. There is also presently no relationship between the IOM and the goals and objectives of the voluntary assisted return programme and the Ireland Aid programme, which has as its principle objective of poverty reduction which has obvious relevance for anybody returning home.  There is also the missed opportunity of promoting potential employment for anybody returning home with the Irish NGOs or the NGO community at large who might be operational in the home country.  There was also concern expressed by other agencies dealing with refugees and asylum seekers that there was a lack of information dissemination relating to this programme and that the IOM needed to strengthen its relationships with agencies dealing with asylum seekers and refugees.  

In relation to the Government Agreements they are seen by many as little more than formalised legal parameters for deportation.  The present policy for reintegration is severely hampered by the Governments preoccupation with the legal procedures of processing applications and minimising the obligations of the government. 

At present there are no other bodies dealing with the issue of repatriation outside the IOM and the Government.  This is due to the admission that they lack the expertise to do so and in some cases are unwilling to see repatriation as anything other than deportation.

- Is there any programme evaluation? 

- Evaluation criteria

- Which improvements could be made regarding 

• Framework
• Financing
• Structures
• Contents
• Target groups

The Minister of Justice, Equality, and Law Reform and the Government has, on a number of occasions, emphasised the importance of the State responding positively to the needs of persons granted refugee status or humanitarian leave to remain, by facilitating their integration into Irish society and ensuring that they are made feel welcome in our country.  In the action programme for the new Millennium, the Government has reaffirmed its commitment to facilitating the integration into Irish society of persons recognised as refugees or granted leave to remain in the State.

The report of the Interdepartmental Working Group in Integration has been accepted by the Government as the framework for the development of a comprehensive and cohesive strategy for integration in Ireland.

Working Group on Integration

“the ability to participate to the extent that a person needs and wishes in all of the major components 
of society, without having to relinquish his or her own cultural identity.”

The Working group believes that integration policy must be framed to prepare individuals to function in Irish society and also create a social environment, which is positive and welcoming to refugees. 

Although the Government has for a number of years provided resources for integration, the report states that, in the absence of a co-ordinated national policy on integration for all refugees, the measures taken by the State have been fragmented and lacking in co-ordination and have had a limited impact. 

In considering future structures for the implementation of Government integration policy, the view presented by the report, is that integration must be clearly grounded in Government policy and driven by central Government.  Equally important is the co-operation of all service providers to the successful and cohesive development and implementation of measures to facilitate integration across all sectors.

The report states, that in developing a comprehensive strategy for integration in Ireland, the experience of other EU Member States and the models adopted by these States to facilitate integration must be considered. The report cited programmes such as those in the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Denmark where the emphasis is placed upon the empowerment of refugees, and the enabling of them to participate in society.  In these countries there is a clear commitment to multi-culturalism, which underpins refugee integration policy and programmes. 

While the Working Group was established to examine the integration of refugees, many of the NGOs in their submissions to the Working Group emphasised the role that the immediate reception experiences of asylum seekers plays in shaping the success or otherwise of the overall integration process for those eventually granted refugee status or permission to remain.  However it is important to note that this report was published in 1999, and as positive as its recommendations and strategies are when asked in the Department of Justice if and findings of the study had been implemented it was stated to be a “work in progress” and in need of final ratification.

Criticisms of the Refugee Act

Additionally many have also voiced their concern relating to the policy of dispersal, direct provision, elements of legislation such as the restriction of the right to judicial review and re-admission agreements that give responsibility to members of feared police forces of refugee producing countries.  The Government has also briefly flirted with the idea of ‘flotels’, fingerprinting of asylum seekers is being introduced and there has been a dramatic increase in the numbers of asylum claims treated as ‘manifestly unfounded’. 

A system of ‘direct provision’ was introduced in response to the introduction in the UK of a voucher system for asylum seekers effective from April 2000.  This practice has been described by the IRC as “inhumane, discriminatory and economically unsound”. [IRC Annual Report] The IRC believes that ‘direct provision’ should be abolished, and should be replaced by a return to mainstream welfare rights. 

According to the IRC there are no other comparable groups in Irish society that receives such an inadequate monetary sum.  Irish people in hostels for the homeless receive substantially more. As Irish nationals are given aid that is believed to be able to guarantee that they can live their lives indignity, it would seem apparent that asylum seekers are not in a position to do so with their current mediocre payments. 

The rationale behind the decision to enact direct provision was to ensure living conditions in Ireland were not seen to be better than in our European partners especially the UK, as the government believed better conditions would act as a ‘pull factor’ to people seeking asylum in Ireland.  It is important to note that the UK has since begun the process of abolishing its voucher system while the Irish government is still standing by its policy of Direct Provision.

 In addition, the current accommodation-led dispersal policy, designed to meet only the basic needs of shelter and food, should be replaced by a comprehensive reception policy, as it is not effective in dealing with the complex needs of asylum seekers and risks exposing already vulnerable people to loneliness and isolation.  They have found fault in the lack of infrastructure and services and inadequate advance preparation of areas to which asylum seekers have been dispersed.  The lack of policy to facilitate the transition of asylum seekers into local communities from direct provision accommodation is according to the IRC, “militating against the integration of asylum seekers and refugees into their new communities”. [IRC Direct Provision and Dispersal 18 Months On] 

Unlike those who have been given refugee status, an asylum seeker in Ireland is considered only to be here in a temporary capacity i.e. while his/her application for refugee status is being considered.  This can result in asylum seekers being sidelined and cut-off from mainstream life in Ireland.  It seems that few asylum seekers have been provided with the type of information they need in order to prepare themselves for the culture shock, which they experience on arrival in Ireland.  Acclimatisation begins as soon as they arrive in Ireland irrespective of whether he/she is destined to leave or remain. 

Successful integration should start on the day an individual claims asylum in Ireland and prepare the individual concerned for all possible outcomes of the asylum procedure, including integration and possible return to their country of origin.  “Since reception standards can affect eventual integration or return, states should consider it to be in their own interest to ensure adequate and humane conditions for asylum seekers during the procedure.” [UNHCR (July 2000) “Reception Standards for Asylum Seekers in the European Union, UNHCR: Geneva, pg2)] Barriers to employment, social networks and decision-making processes all hinder an individual’s successful integration into Irish society.  In effect, this distances a significant minority from the incomes and lifestyles of the majority. 

The European commission has proposed, in a draft directive on minimum standards on the reception of asylum applicants by EU members that, “member states shall not forbid applicants and their family members to have access to the labour market more than six months after their application (for asylum has been lodged)” [Commission of the European Communities (2001), Article 13.1] 

In this light, the Irish government total exclusion of most asylum seekers from the labour market is both out of step with recommended best practice in the EU and contradicts the real economic needs of the country. 

A recent study shows that non-recognition of qualifications and previous work experience continues to present a major problem for refugees and asylum seekers able to seek employment, not least because it is proving very disheartening to refugees and asylum seekers.  Some refugees and asylum seekers are attempting to overcome this obstacle by opting for re-training and re-qualification often in a lesser skill to their former one.  Depending on the skill-level of their previous occupations some are faced with years of re-education and re-training in order to have any hope of returning to work in their former professions.  In some cases they are settling instead for employment well below their skill level with little prospect of career development.  The severe shortage of orientation training in interview skills and Irish work practices, together with limited access to pre-employment training and in some cases poor English language skills, is viewed by NGOs as having a very detrimental effect on the self-esteem of many.  Also time spent on Direct Provision and supplementary Welfare- sometimes up to two years- is greatly damaging to an individuals employability.

Conclusions

Policies designed to exclude an individual from mainstream society until their legal status is determined only succeeded in further complicating future policies designed to integrate the same individuals.  Therefore, the scope of the current Government policy to integrate recognised refugees and those with ‘leave to remain’ should be widened so as to include asylum seekers, specifically in relation to work, education, and training, including English language training.