Mr. Rory O'Neill:

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute. Currently, more than 500 people in the direct provision system have their papers and are entitled to leave. This is, obviously, because of the national housing crisis. The transition from a long-term shared institutional existence in direct provision to living autonomously in the community is seen as another precarious journey in the lives of asylum seekers and refugees. After years of enduring an institutional existence, the relief of receiving a positive status and being able to move is short-lived. The realisation that people now have to fend for themselves following years of living a life that allowed for no self-determination, freedom or independence is daunting and problematic as they make this transition. While we support and welcome the recommendations that others have made to this committee in regard to rent control, caps on rent, the increase in capital spending on social housing, increases in rent allowances and rent certainty among others, the issues of housing and homelessness affect many other groups of people.

We are here to acknowledge and illustrate the problems that face the migrant community and those who have been through the asylum process and are entitled to avail of the social entitlements that are applicable to their situation and individual requirements. They have particular and exigent needs which they are struggling to meet and address. Without access to suitable housing, this cohort of people will struggle to become productive and contributing members of society and will remain disenfranchised, which will further contribute to social injustice and inequality.

Even without suffering from the residual effects of institutional living, transitioning from direct provision is fraught with difficulty. A catch-22 situation exists for most people, whereby when they try to access social welfare payments, they are unable to do so because they do not have an address. They have to be out of the direct provision system to obtain an address. They are, therefore, caught in a vicious cycle where they cannot access social welfare to get housing unless they can get out of the hostels. Some people are able to access social welfare while they are in the direct provision centres, thus giving them the ability to save for a deposit, but in the main, this is not the case. It should be remembered that people in the asylum system are not allowed to work - a prohibition maintained in the International Protection Act 2015 - and receive an allowance of €19.10 per week, which has enabled them to save for a deposit.

In many cases, landlords do not accept rent allowance, even though they can no longer discriminate under legislation. However, this is a common problem for people exiting direct provision. They are unable to get references to access accommodation. The issue of sourcing accommodation that allows people to live close to family, schools and support networks is extremely difficult. As the committee will be well aware, the rental market for accommodation is in extreme short supply. This is further compounded by the fact that landlords will not accept rent allowance. Rules forbidding asylum seekers from working and attending college exacerbate the isolation and social exclusion living in direct provision involves and precludes them from moving on properly when they get their papers.