Ireland ‘failing obligation to provide accommodation to asylum seekers’

There is “overwhelming” evidence that the state is failing in its “clear and undisputed” obligation to provide accommodation to thousands of international protection applicants, the High Court has been told.

The court in Dublin heard the opening statements in a case taken by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) against the state over its failure to provide adequate accommodation to people seeking asylum in Ireland.

The IHREC wants the court to make declarations that the state has failed its obligations and is breaching applicants’ rights under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

On December 4 last year, the Government stated that it could no longer offer accommodation to men seeking international protection.

It is the first time that the IHREC has taken legal action in its own name to defend the human rights of others.

The Minister for Children Roderic O’Gorman is listed among the defendants in the hearing and will outline arguments in the case on Thursday.

The court was told today that as of May 10, more than 2,800 people who were entitled to be offered accommodation have not been provided with accommodation from the state.

These include the men who had been living in tents on Mount Street and on the Grand Canal in recent months.

Eoin McCullough, counsel for the Commission, said there are four provisions under the charter which are key to the case.

“First, is that the state is under an obligation pursuant to Article 1 of the charter to provide accommodation whether in kind or otherwise,” Mr McCullough said.

“The second is that it is a mandatory obligation. Any lack of resources is not to be relied upon.”

He told the court that while the position of the state in providing accommodation may be difficult, the obligations still must be met.

Mr McCullough said that the state has failed to provide accommodation to 2,807 since December last year, and up until two weeks ago, some 1,750 international protection applicants were still awaiting an offer of accommodation.

He is asking the court to say that the state’s failure to offer accommodation to those who are entitled to it is unlawful.

He said: “I hope to demonstrate that in the presence of a clear and undisputed obligation and in the presence of overwhelming evidence, that it is not being met, (and) it is incumbent on the court to make an order. Anything else would offend rule of law.”

He added that the proposition of the state’s obligations “cannot be in dispute”.

He said that the state is under an obligation to provide applicants with an adequate standard of living which protects their physical and mental health, and any failure to do so is in breach of the applicants’ rights.

The court was told that the obligations set out under the charter are not one of “reasonable endeavours” but are mandatory obligations which is required to “secure the dignity” of the people concerned.

Mr McCullough said that in the state’s affidavit, there was an emphasis on street homelessness and the contention that only the international applicants are homeless living in those tents in the city centre.

He said, however, that there is no satisfactory evidence that there are not other street homeless people among the asylum seekers.

The court was told that the state is under an obligation to provide housing, food and clothing which can be done so in kind or as allowances or vouchers as well as the provision of the Daily Expenses Allowance.

The senior counsel said that if the state does not provide physical accommodation, then it must be done so through financial allowances.

He added: “Ultimately, the next question is this: Is that obligation met by the state doing two things which is by paying an allowance of 113.80 euro per week and also entering into agreement with four named charities to provide food and some hygiene facilities.”

Mr McCullough said said the evidence shows that it is not possible to find accommodation for 113.80 euro per week.

The court heard that some of the international applicants were able to live precariously with fellow countrymen, while others slept in a mosque.

Mr McCullough referred to a previous case from April last year, involving an Afghan asylum seeker, in which the High Court said that the state has breached the charter by failing to provide him with accommodation, food and basic hygiene.

He told the court that the state in this case does not accept it is failing to meet “material reception conditions” because of a change to the weekly allowance paid to unaccommodated international applicants, which was increased by 75 euro.

Mr McCullough said that the position now is “more acute than it was” last year due to the rise in unaccommodated asylum seekers.

He also said there is evidence showing that the level of risk facing the group of unaccommodated applicants has “significantly heightened”.

The court was told that there are real risks to their physical security and their mental health arising from the circumstances.

The case will continue on Thursday.