COMMENT: The people must have the final say on Achill direct provision centre

The controversy over the proposed Direct Provision centre on Achill Island continues to generate intense interest throughout the county and indeed across the country, writes JOSIAH BURKE.

The Direct Provision model has long been criticised as a thoroughly unsuitable means of accommodating asylum seekers in Ireland.

Campaigners who have experienced life in a direct provision centre have in recent months become more vocal in their criticism of the system.

They argue that the system as it stands fails to treat asylum seekers with dignity and humanity.

We all agree that an acceptable standard of care should be afforded to asylum seekers in Ireland, but Direct Provision is not and was never intended to be the perfect solution to this issue.

One might well argue that those people who come to Ireland for asylum cannot reasonably expect an entirely care-free existence. They are, after all, seeking ‘asylum’, which means exactly ‘refuge or protection’, and this they receive even in the worst Direct Provision centres (and for free).

The case is often made that the Irish were welcomed abroad when we ourselves had to emigrate, and therefore we should be more open to asylum seekers and Direct Provision centres than perhaps we currently are.

This seemingly unassailable line of argument is suspect. While the Irish diaspora has taken root in countless countries across the world, any serious student of history will know that the Irish were also often despised and treated with contempt in the countries where we sought refuge (No Dogs, No Irish, etc).

But we didn’t demand favours or crusade for our ‘rights’. We appreciated the chance at a new life and, for the most part, worked our backs off to make it a reality.

The early 20th century construction boom in New York City, for example, was fuelled largely by Irish labour, with a similar story for the post-war reconstruction of British cities.

Tell a famine-stricken 1840s Ireland that there was free accommodation, healthcare and education (and perhaps even free legal aid) for asylum seekers in the USA, and there would have been no one left in this country within a year.

We should pride ourselves in the care we afford immigrants today, and we should expect that care to be met with gratitude and appreciation from its beneficiaries.

But the situation in Achill Island has highlighted a deeper problem than Direct Provision.

A problem that goes beyond simply the question of how we treat immigrants in this country.

A problem that strikes to the very heart of how we believe our democracy itself should operate.

On October 23 the Achill residents became aware that a contract had been agreed between the Achill Head Hotel and the Department of Justice to house up to 38 male asylum seekers in the hotel for three months. The residents were alarmed and began a ‘silent vigil’ outside the hotel.

Despite repeatedly seeking clarification from the Department of Justice on the arrangements for the Achill centre, little clear information was communicated to the locals.

The Department had not contacted the local gardaí, schools or GPs with regard to the proposed 38 asylum seekers.

A notice was later posted in the window of the hotel stating that ‘13 female asylum seekers’ would arrive on November 1, but no official confirmation of a change in the provision contract was communicated to the Achill residents.

With the vigil outside the hotel continuing, the Department of Justice issued a press release on October 31, the partisan and vindictive nature of which was unprecedented.

The statement read: “…an ongoing protest remains in place outside the hotel, so the department has regrettably decided that, at the moment, to ask the women to move there would not be in their best interests, as they may be vulnerable while awaiting decisions on their protection applications.”

Rather than acknowledge that the blame lay at their own door for cloaking the asylum plans in secrecy and refusing to communicate effectively with local residents, the department darkly and sanctimoniously asserts that the plans were abandoned because the welfare of the asylum seekers was threatened by the vigil maintained by locals outside the hotel.

In essence, the Department implied that the people of Achill were not entitled to a consultation on the matter. They should lie down and accept the better judgment of their government. After all, the officials in government offices know far more about what is best for Achill then those who have lived there for generations ever could.

And herein lies the problem. The entire purpose of our democracy is that the government acts as a servant of the people, elected and incorporated to serve their interests alone.

Bunreacht na hÉireann lays out clearly the origin, purpose and limit of government power: ‘All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy…’ (Art. 6.1).

But the recent events in Achill have shown the government to be anything but a servant of the people. Indeed, far from working on their behalf, the state now appears to be actively working against the people, endeavouring through concealment and dissimulation to impose an outcome on Achill Island to which its own residents are vigorously opposed.

It’s not just Achill that has faced this frightening scenario of a government working behind their backs.

In May of this year the residents of Courttown in Co. Wexford said they were not consulted about a local hotel being used to accommodate asylum seekers and raised concerns about the level of service provision available nearby.

In September, residents of Oughterard protested the Direct Provision centre plans for their small town, accusing the Department of Justice of ‘secrecy’ regarding the proposed use of a closed hotel for asylum seekers.

In October, plans for a direct provision centre in Ballinamore Co. Leitrim were shelved after locals protested, again, the failure by the government to consult with the locals on the matter.

The list goes on.

But not only has the government failed to properly consult with local residents, it has added insult to injury by casting dark aspersions on those residents who have objected to their asylum plans.

Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan has called for the ‘siege to be lifted’, referring to the ongoing vigil outside the Achill Head Hotel.

The minister went on to suggest that ‘far-right’ influences (whatever they are) were 'infiltrating' many towns and villages where there was opposition to the opening of Direct Provision centres. This insinuation has been rejected outright by the Achill residents concerned.

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, speaking at an Immigration Council meeting in Dublin, weakly admitted that the government had to ‘engage better with communities’ – but quickly moved on to what presumably he felt was more important: ‘I think we also need to call out the scaremongering of those who seek to exploit local concerns for their own political, personal or - in some cases - racist reasons’.

This casual accusation of possible racist motives on the behalf of the Achill people, coming from a man whose own policies created the problem in the first place, is disgraceful.

Democracy rests on respect for the will of the people. Varadkar and his government should note that Achill Island belongs, not to the government, but to the people who have lived there for generations.

Those people, not government ministers, should have the final say on this issue.

In a real democracy we could expect the local TDs to seriously take up the case for the Achill people. Recent comments from Minister Michael Ring do not give immediate cause for hope in this regard.

When asked by RTÉ which side of the debate he was on in regard to the protests at Achill, Ring said: “I’m on every side of the debate.” No wonder public trust in politics is ebbing low.

There is only one way to confront a government that seeks to implement change behind our backs, be that change in our schools, our society in general or with regard to the issue of Direct Provision. That way is direct, public action as we have seen in Achill Island.

The Achill people are making a principled, costly stand for their rights as a community.

Their stand is not only for their own right to have a say on the issue of direct provision on their island. It is a fight for the democratic rights of all little people who find themselves pitted against big bureaucracy.

It is a reminder to a supercilious government that the people must have the final say.

(Josiah Burke, Castlebar, is a graduate of the London School of Economics and NUI Galway).