Asylum seekers left homeless are ‘not in state of degradation incompatible with human dignity', appeal court rules
The ruling, published on Wednesday, comes in response to an appeal by the State against a judgment of the High Court.
In that case, heard last year, the High Court ruled the State had failed in its duty to provide for the basic needs, including accommodation, of international protection applicants, thereby breaching their right to dignity.
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC) had brought the case in respect of a class of people, namely international protection applicants, who were not offered accommodation when they made their asylum claim having recently arrived in Ireland.
READ MORE
The State lodged its appeal to that ruling last November, and it was heard in March.
When the IHREC began its case in December 2023, there were 259 international protection applicants left unaccommodated.
As of July 14th, there were 1,333 male international protection applicants, or asylum seekers, 'awaiting offer of accommodation', Department of Justice data showed.
Since December 2023, when the policy of not guaranteeing accommodation to single, male adult asylum seekers accommodation on arrival began, a total of 9,763 have presented to make international protection applications.
Accommodation was offered to 1,391 on arrival – generally those triaged as 'vulnerable'. Offers were made subsequent to their arrival in the cases of 7,039 men.
In lieu of accommodation this cohort is provided with weekly allowance of €113.80 a week along with information on charities providing food and tents. International protection applicants are not entitled to emergency accommodation.
In a statement on Wednesday, the human rights commission said: 'We welcome the fact that the court has confirmed that IHREC has proved that the State had placed international protection applicants in a position of extreme material poverty.
'The court has also clearly confirmed IHREC's entitlement to bring a case of this nature.
'The court has gone on to state that evidence provided by IHREC from a small sample of homeless IP [international protection] applicants was insufficient to prove that those conditions of extreme material poverty undermined the physical and mental health of the 2,800 IP applicants who were the subject of this case to the degree that it breached their right to human dignity.'
It said it would fully consider the judgment before commenting further.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
16 hours ago
- Irish Times
There's one scenario in which tariffs won't be a disaster for Ireland
I have enough grey hairs to remember trade deals being done in the past, notably the massive Uruguay round of talks which concluded in 1994 and was – though we didn't know it at the time – the high point of a long postwar drive to free world trade and reduce tariffs. The media spent many hours outside meeting rooms as negotiators from more than 120 countries went through complex line-by-line negotiations to cut tariffs and trade barriers. For Ireland, it was always a case of trading off the potential gains for industry with the threat to farmers. But over time, the State was a huge winner. The world had already started to move away from the relentless globalisation drive which had lasted well into this century. And now we have Trump's new world order and trade 'deals' which are a mix of reality, spin and fudge. We still do not know the full details of the deal between the United States and the European Union – before we even start to worry about how Trump might try to rewrite it. Ibec chief economist Gerard Brady calculates that exporters accounting for about 10 per cent of our export value to the US now know their tariff and another 10-15 per cent await news on exemptions from tariffs being negotiated between the US and the EU. The remaining 75 per cent or so of pharma and semiconductor exporters will have to wait for separate investigations now under way in the Trump administration. READ MORE There is a potential outcome from all this which, while damaging, would not be disastrous for Ireland in the short term. There will be problems, but the economy could adjust and adapt. While the Department of Finance estimates that the tariffs could lead to employment being 70,000 lower in five years' time and the economy 1.5 per cent smaller are, at best, a rough guesstimate, they do look to be in the right direction. On current trends, this would mean growth continuing, just not as quickly as it would have. We can assess the potential damage for Ireland only when we know the full details. The spirits and whiskey sectors look exposed, for example, as the US says it is a target for the 15 per cent tariffs. As this is a big issue in France, there will be an EU push in the week ahead, before final details of the deal with the US are published, to try to lower the burden here. As well as the impact on Ireland, this is one to watch at political level in the EU, as France puts pressure on Ursula von der Leyen 's European Commission , which negotiates on behalf of the EU. As butter, another vital Irish export, was already subject to a tariff of about 16-17 per cent (which will remain), things will at least not get any worse here. If we want to identify problem areas, smaller companies reliant on the US in a range of sectors is one. Small may no longer be beautiful in a complex and politically-driven world market. And it is also worth focusing on the risks to parts of rural Ireland – as highlighted by Chambers Ireland chief executive Ian Talbot – particularly those reliant on sectors such as food and also pharma and medical products. Towns such as Westport and Kinsale will anxiously await details on the pharma tariffs. [ EU-US trade deal analysis: Tariffs have a price for both sides. Trump was willing to pay it Opens in new window ] And here things remain a bit woolly, largely because the US president is undertaking study of this sector under a so-called section 232 process – referring to a section of a 1960s US act. This is separate from the big so-called reciprocal tariffs announced on Friday. The EU view is that its deal caps tariffs on pharma at 15 per cent – including any outcome from this separate process. If this holds, the sector at least knows its maximum charge. A big report – due shortly – has been drawn up for Trump under section 232, which looks at national security issues from trade and how more of the supply chain of key products can be brought back to the US from countries such as Ireland. Let's hope Trump does not revisit the 15 per cent maximum tariff figure as part of this. Tariffs are only one of Trump's policies options. On Thursday, he issued a letter to 17 of the big pharma companies demanding they cut prices in the US to the lowest level applying elsewhere. As a big buyer of pharma, the US state machinery has a lot of power here. Imposing high tariffs appears to run counter to the drive for lower prices. So the interaction between Trump and big pharma is another key thing to watch in the weeks ahead. What we do know is that the US president is determined to return pharma investment to the US and get better prices for American consumers. For Ireland, the initial impact may be slow enough to emerge. But this is likely to mean somewhat lower investment by pharma here in the years ahead and a sector which may be more focused on EU and other markets rather than exporting back to the US. Changes in the pricing and accounting practices of the multinationals – now designed to report massive profits in low-tax Ireland – are also likely to cut corporate tax revenue here. Like the rest of the economy, the Irish pharma sector will adjust. But there will be a cost, the scale of which depends on the extent of US policy action. The longer-term strategic questions will take time to clarify themselves. A major issue is whether Trump's policy direction will stick. If you are, say, a big pharma company, do you base your investments on an expectation that this is now the new world, or that Trump's policies will, in time, be rolled back either by him or by his successor? US court challenges to his powers to impose wide-scale tariffs are only now playing out. US consumer prices are surely set to rise – the only question is how much and whether there will be a cost in jobs. And the financial market calm could be upset at any time, given the crazy and risky course on which Trump has embarked. On Friday, they were already looking jumpy. So the uncertainty will roll on. Ireland should get through the first wave of this, albeit with some collateral damage. But the big question is our place in a world which seems to be breaking up into new trading blocs and alliances. And whether the valuable certainty which a final, agreed trade deal might bring can last - Ireland and Europe now needs Trump to direct his attention elsewhere.
Irish Times
17 hours ago
- Irish Times
Ireland has too many quangos and too many lawyers feeding off its clientelist politics
If government is the group of people who run a state and the formal rules and institutions by which they do so, governance is how they go about that through networks, processes, interests, ideologies and political actors at different levels. The Republic of Ireland has a well-defined and clearly identifiable government structure, formally accountable through elections and the Oireachtas and amply covered by media . In contrast its governance is much more opaque, less visible to its citizens and its media coverage is patchy and uneven. This matters because the Republic currently suffers from a series of problems – in housing, energy, water, climate, health and care infrastructure and in its economic model – that arise from suboptimal governance just as much as from short-sighted or incompetent governments. These problems are often made more visible by comparisons with similar states in Europe and elsewhere. This State is one of the most centralised in Europe , whether defined by the functional and geographical concentration of executive and political power in Dublin or the comparatively puny powers of both parliamentary and local government. Such centralisation puts an onus on political leaders and executive managers to get things right through coherent, integrated policymaking. READ MORE The abiding localism of Irish life is channelled to the capital by networks of TDs, private lobbying and clientelism that dominate the distribution of resources. That perfectly matches the retail, consumerist and reactive side of everyday Irish politics – and provides much of the media agenda. Less often discussed are the resulting poor outcomes across a range of public services because more local and regional structures of governance are unavailable to policymakers. [ Fintan O'Toole: The three pillars of Ireland's political system are crumbling Opens in new window ] Instead policymaking is often outsourced to quangos (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations). An OECD report identified 800 of them and said they clog up Irish governance and inhibit local government . Notorious examples of poor practice and opaque structures in health and educational bodies provide daily headline news. If we are over-quangoed we are also over-lawyered in planning and insurance per head of comparable European populations. These issues show up plainly in how Irish governments responded to the growing population over the past decade during the economic recovery and expansion after the financial crisis. Immigration of skilled labour through work permits has increased the population by 16 per cent, or more if refugees are also factored in. Imperatives of economic growth drove the expansion; but it was not accompanied by plans to increase housing and infrastructure to provide for a growing and more complex society demanding greater public services. Instead market forces prevailed, but they failed to meet that demand. [ Chronic inability to build anything big in the State is baked into the system Opens in new window ] These widening gaps were identified by some analysts and commentators, and they then became part of the political and election agenda. But they have dominated public debate only since being put there squarely by big economic players and international organisations over the past year. Infrastructure deficits inhibit new investments, they say – and that coincides with wider concerns about how vulnerable the Irish economic model has become to international shocks, particularly from Donald Trump. Hence the level of interest in the National Development Plan and its methodology. Rather than base it on an analysis of changing demographics, economic trends and social needs which generate development priorities, its method is more ad hoc in response to the uncertain international backdrop. Detailed project plans await definition, as the scale of the Trump tariff shock is assessed. In the meantime, different Government departments are allocated capital expenditure envelopes based on their bargaining power. How will the updated National Development Plan shape Ireland in years to come? Listen | 35:59 It's a far cry from the strategic foresight approach to governing increasingly advocated by analysts, companies, the EU and international organisations. That involves gathering information about relevant trends and potentially disruptive risks, developing scenarios about plausible futures and integrating such insights into anticipatory planning. The OECD has advocated such an approach for Ireland and there are several initiatives in government and academia to apply them. Had they been deployed over the past decade we could have been better prepared to tackle these development gaps – not to mention linking them to the equally plausible prospect of a united Ireland. Notwithstanding the highly centralised nature of Irish government, it has lacked the capacity to aggregate governance coherently and to resist particular interests. The consequences of changing demographics and economic growth should have been more effectively foreseen, but were not. For that politicians and executive managers should share the blame. [ Tariff 'uncertainties' could 'weigh heavily' on Irish economic growth Opens in new window ] The problems are exacerbated by the narrow base of Irish taxation, in which 10 US corporations provide 40 per cent of corporate tax revenue, along with the glaring six-fold contrast between the multinational sector's high productivity and that of indigenous industry. Tackling these problems requires structural change in the Republic's governance to decentralise and redemocratise power, by prioritising and co-ordinating development gaps more effectively with better analysis. That would help repair the seriously widening distributional and political gaps between older and younger generations.
Irish Times
17 hours ago
- Irish Times
NI community projects fear closure after US and UK funding reportedly pulled from peace organisation
A number of community and peacebuilding projects supported by the International Fund for Ireland (IFI) fear they will close due to the reported loss of vital funding from the US . It also emerged this week that the UK government had pulled a promised £1 million , citing budgetary pressures. However, multiple organisations told The Irish Times their 'bigger concern' was the halting of the US contribution to the peacebuilding and reconciliation body. The IFI said it had received financial support from 'a range of international donors including the US government' and was seeking clarity and support from its US partners. READ MORE The peacebuilding organisation was established by the British and Irish governments in 1986 to promote economic and social development and bring together nationalist, unionist and cross-Border communities. Since then, the IFI has spent €974 million supporting more than 6,000 projects, including efforts to remove peace walls and to prevent young people from being recruited or attacked by paramilitaries. The US government has traditionally been the IFI's largest funder. According to the IFI's accounts, its donations last year came from two sources, €2.5 million from the US and €5.5 million from the Irish Government. USAid, which administers foreign aid for the US government, was closed by president Donald Trump earlier this year. [ Senator George Mitchell: Northern Ireland's peace must evolve. And if it is here to stay it must be shared Opens in new window ] In February, Donald Trump's administration cut USAid jobs. Photographer: Pete Kiehart/Bloomberg via Getty Images It is not yet clear precisely how this will impact the IFI, but groups which deliver its projects in Ireland fear their funding will not be renewed at the end of this financial year. 'Since Donald Trump removed the USAid ... they've been more or less telling us we don't have any funding,' said a representative of one community organisation, who asked to remain anonymous so as not to jeopardise their contract. 'We've been told we should look for other funding if we want to keep the project going.' Conal McFeely, of Creggan Enterprises, which has previously received IFI funding, said: 'We've been told the reason the IFI are now considering withdrawing is because they've been choked of this funding from USAid, and they're out telling groups they're not going to continue their funding'. Emphasising the 'highly significant' role the body had played, he said it was 'instrumental in bedding down the peace here and attempting to contain and settle the conflict. They're a key player'. But he said 'a number of programmes, particularly in the Derry area, including here in Creggan, have been informed it's likely their programmes will not be funded beyond the current term, and they've been told to consider winding the projects down. 'There is a complete lack of alternative funders willing to take a risk ... lots of those initiatives will unfortunately fall by the wayside,' he added. Mr McFeely added it was 'extremely disappointing' the UK government was 'withholding its last [£1 million] phase of funding, and that will have a detrimental impact on the ground here in terms of marginalised communities that are still dealing with the fallout from the conflict. 'If the Irish Government is still prepared to put in money, why is the British government not matching that money? It's scandalous,' he said. In a statement, the IFI said that it 'has received financial support from a range of international donors including the US government, the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and the UK. 'We are grateful for the long-standing support from all our partners, including the bipartisan support under various US administrations,' it said. 'We are continuing to engage with our US partners to seek clarity around support from the US government which will play a key role in the delivery of the IFI's programmes into the future.' It said all projects currently funded by the IFI 'remain unaffected and their funding is secure as per their letters of offer'. 'Support from the US and others remains critical in our ability to deliver peace and reconciliation initiatives in Northern Ireland and the southern border counties,' the body said.
