The Government cannot be accused of inaction over its obligations to meet the basic needs of those from other countries seeking international protection here, the High Court heard.
If one looks at the dramatic increase in those seeking accommodation and support here in the last two years and what the State has done to meet their needs, there is not any case of Government inaction or indifference, David Conlan Smyth SC told the court.
Mr Smyth was making arguments on behalf of the Minister for Integration, the Attorney General and the State in reply to the case being brought by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) over the alleged lack of “material reception conditions” for many adult male international protection applicants.
Mr Conlan Smyth said in the last two years there have been 96,000 seeking accommodation, whether as international protection applicants or people fleeing the war in Ukraine under the EU temporary protection directive.
This directive provides visa waivers for Ukrainians coming to the EU along with immediate access to the labour market and access to social protection and other State supports.
Some 30,000 of those are international protection applicants (who must go through the asylum process). This is at least a tripling of those numbers while overall the number of people seeking accommodation had increased 11-fold, counsel said.
The State has been drawing from the same finite pool of accommodation but, despite that, it has managed to roll out 11-times the amount of accommodation that has been available, he said.
Counsel said it had now been decided there is a need to move away from a system where commercial enterprise-provided accommodation to a State-owned system which would be able to accommodate 13,000 a year, augmented by contingent accommodation for 11,000 provided by the commercial sector.
Across the EU, the number of applications for accommodation grew from 714,000 to 1.14m during the last two years which was a dramatic increase of 59 per cent.
However, Ireland almost uniquely faced a much greater increase of 185pc. "So the figures themselves are stark and show the scale of the challenge posed", counsel said.
This was not a case of Government inaction which was important in terms of the legal position and whether the State is meeting its legal obligations under the EU directive or the human rights charter, he said.
Counsel said the difficulties faced by the State also have to be considered against "a reality of hostility” and 24-hour protests such as at the former Crown Paints factory in Coolock, Dublin, where plans for a 550 capacity centre were being stalled.
There had also been the reality of criminality including public order offences, criminal damage and arson incidents at some 15 locations in the last 24 months.
There were attacks at places including Abbeyville House in Fermoy, Cork, Roscahill in Galway, Kill Equestrian Centre in Kildare, Trudder House in Wicklow, and Elblana Senior College, Dun Laoghaire, he said.
Given these "significant challenges", the respondents say this is part of the reason why they are not in breach of their obligations, he said.
While IHREC has argued that the question of what to do is a matter for the State, not IHREC, counsel said it is fair to say that they are asking that there are two options available: these are the double or tripling of the daily monetary allowance and/or to provide accommodation immediately.
However, even if the allowance was increased (to allow people to get their own accommodation), there is a very significant obstacle entirely beyond the control of the State. T
his was that accommodation providers require passports and credit cards to book accommodation and the State cannot address those problems, counsel said.
The allowance had been increased last December from €35 per week to €113.80 per week when the Government first announced there were difficulties in providing accommodation to single male applicants, he said.
That figure has to be considered in the context of where access is also provided to services during the daytime, including food, showers, phone charging and wifi along with access to health professionals, he said.
Counsel said the rate here is in line with or higher than countries like Germany (€95.90) and France (€99.40).
The figure complies with the requirement for the harmonisation of conditions so that "secondary movement" (from one country to another) by applicants is not influenced by large differences in rates.
The case continues before Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell.
