Conference Programme (PDF, 1019KB) - Trinity College Dublin

abstracts by stream and session
The Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, acknowledged Ireland’s obligation under international
human rights law to “house homeless people who have pitched up on our shores” (Seán Aylward to the Oireachtas Public Accounts
Committee in October 2009), but the Department has been careful not to create an economic “pull factor” (Noel Dowling in Ní Shé et al
2007). Instead it has tried to strike a balance between fulfilling Ireland’s obligations under international treaties which it has ratified, and
ensuring that a deterrent is in place to discourage people from coming to Ireland to seek asylum.
While the policy alleviated the housing shortage in the Eastern Health Board area, it has had implications for those living in the
accommodation provided as it is often seen as inadequate and not a suitable place to raise children. Most of the accommodation is full
board which means that people cannot cook for themselves; children never see their parents cook; meals are at set times.
Furthermore, direct provision residents are prohibited from working by law. Ireland is one of only two European Union member states
which have not signed the Reception Directive which gives the right to work to asylum seekers after a specified period of time. The only
income a direct provision resident receives is the weekly direct provision allowance of €19.10 for an adult and €9.60 for a child. It is the
only social welfare payment not to have increased since it was introduced in 2000. The prohibition on working, and the dependency on the
social welfare system, adds to the misconception that direct provision residents are lazy and want to avail of the Irish State’s generous
social welfare system when in fact over the past ten years the Government has put in place a number of measures to limit access to
social welfare payments. In 2003 asylum seekers could no longer access rent supplement and live in independent accommodation. In
2004, the Habitual Residence Condition (HRC) was introduced to discourage “welfare tourism” from the EU accession states. Following
this introduction, the Department of Social and Family Affairs operated a blanket ban on asylum seekers or direct provision residents who
applied for any social welfare payment other than the direct provision allowance and clothing allowances in the form of Exceptional Needs
Payments which may be granted at the discretion of the Community Welfare Officer.
In 2009, FLAC won a number of cases in which the Chief Social Welfare Appeals Officer held that a person in direct provision could satisfy
the HRC. The final five decisions were given in December 2009 but a week later the Social Welfare and Pensions (No 2) Bill 2009 was
guillotined through the Dáil and enacted into law without proper debate on the issues. This means that no direct provision resident can
now satisfy the HRC and avail of social welfare payments.
The way in which the Government has responded to its obligations to provide for those seeking refugee status, humanitarian leave to
remain or subsidiary protection, raises questions as to the extent to which their responsibilities are fulfilled. On the one hand States are
given some leeway in relation to immigration control but they still have to comply with the treaty rights to which they are bound through
the ratification of international instruments including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It is a matter of striking a balance between both and any response to an increase in people coming
into the country must be proportionate.
It seems policies such as the direct provision and dispersal system, as well as the introduction of the Habitual Residence Condition are
being used as a deterrent to discourage people from coming to Ireland. In terms of individuals or families fleeing persecution in their own
State, there is no evidence to suggest that they have researched the destination before they leave and have chosen it on the basis of the
payments they may receive as demonstrated in a report by the British Refugee Council published in January 2010. Instead asylum
seekers should be treated as refugees awaiting a confirmation of their status, rather than treated with suspicion and disrespect.
SESSION 2d Managing Migration in Ireland
Policy Paradoxes: The State and the Causes of Trafficking for Forced Labour in Ireland
*Gillian Wylie, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Deirdre Coughlan, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
Research carried out in Ireland under the ESF project on trafficking for forced labour, revealed that there were at least 50 cases of TFL in
Ireland between 1999 and 2007. Workers from around the globe were found to be exploited in the construction, farming, restaurant and
domestic work sectors.
Ireland adopted anti-trafficking legislation in 2008 and now has the ‘law, institutional capacity and consultative mechanisms’ (Plant, 2009)
necessary to address human trafficking. The emphasis of this law is on defining trafficking as a form of organised crime, which
necessitates a strongly prosecutorial response by the state. Ironically however, while the Irish state has adopted anti-trafficking policies,
other aspects of its policy regime continue to create the underlying causes of trafficking and migrant worker exploitation. Over the last
years, Ireland’s migration and employment regimes have been evolving with the intent of both squeezing out migrant workers from
non-EEA countries and funnelling migrant workers from EU accession states into low-skilled, poorly regulated sectors (Ruhr and Quinn,
2009). Such policies create the context for human trafficking, undocumented migration and workplace exploitation.
Recognising these on-going dilemmas, NGOs and Trade Unions in Ireland have campaigned to protect exploited migrant workers. There
have been some successes in this respect, particularly the bridging visa campaign and opposition to a government proposal to reduce the
amount of time available for migrants who are made redundant to find new work. However, such campaigns work incrementally and have
focused first on protecting the rights of those who legally entered Ireland. A more profound response to trafficking for forced labour will
require addressing the dissonance between the state’s anti-trafficking commitment and its policy regimes which foster exploitative
practices.
63