The High Court was informed that the Government can’t be criticised for not fulfilling its responsibilities to cater for the fundamental needs of people from other nations seeking international protection in the country. David Conlan Smyth SC, speaking for the court, highlighted the significant rise in applicants for housing and support over the past two years and the measures taken by the State to fulfil their needs, dismissing any allegation of government indolence or apathy.
Mr Conlan Smyth was arguing on behalf of the Minister for Integration, the Attorney General and the State, responding to the case brought by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) concerning the alleged absence of sufficient reception arrangements for several adult male applicants for international protection.
He commented that in the past two years, 96,000 individuals have sought housing, either as applicants for international protection or as refugees from the Ukrainian conflict under the EU Temporary Protection Directive. This directive offers visa exemptions for Ukrainians moving to the EU and grants access to employment, social protection and other supports.
Around 30,000 of these are applicants for international protection, who are required to undergo the asylum procedure. This, as he stated, accounts for at least a threefold increase in numbers, while the overall number seeking accommodation has increased 11 times. Despite drawing from a limited pool of housing, the State has managed to provide eleven times more accommodation than what was previously offered.
The legal counsel remarked on the decision to transition from a system with commercial enterprise provided accommodation towards a State-owned system with capacity for 13,000 individuals a year, supplemented by 11,000 contingent spots provided in the commercial sector.
He mentioned that across the EU, accommodation applications escalated from 714,000 to 1.14 million over the past two years, marking an upturn of 59 per cent. However, Ireland has witnessed a much more drastic increase of 185 per cent, illustrating the magnitude of the problem.
He stressed that the situation cannot be considered as government negligence, marking its significance regarding the legal standing, and whether the State is fulfilling its legal responsibilities under the EU directive or the human rights charter.
Legal counsel addressed the issues faced when considering “a tangible climate of animosity” and continuous protests like those at the old Crown Paints factory in Coolock, Dublin. This is where plans for a facility that can hold 550 people have been delayed. In the past two years, there have also been recorded public order offences, incidents of vandalism and cases of arson at a total of 15 venues. In light of these “substantial obstacles,” the defence claimed they are not violating their responsibilities.
Interestingly, while the IHREC asserts the problem lies with the State and not them, their lawyer pointed out they propose two potential solutions: either doubling or tripling the daily monetary subsidy and/or providing immediate housing.
Regardless, the lawyer noted a substantial barrier entirely out of the State’s jurisdiction, which is the requirement by accommodation providers for passports and credit cards to reserve rooms. This is something the State cannot rectify.
Last December, the weekly allowance was raised from €35 to €113.80 in response to issues in providing housing to single male applicants. This allowance, available for services during the day such as food, showers, phone charging and Wi-Fi, as well as access to health professionals, must be viewed within that context.
The lawyer highlighted that the rate in our country is on par with or surpasses that of nations like Germany (€95.90) and France (€99.40). It adheres to the harmony of conditions to deter “secondary movement” (movement from one country to another) of applicants based on substantial disparities in rates. Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell continues to review the case.