Ms Sue Conlan:

We did not refer specifically to the recommendations that followed Mr. Rory O'Neill's but perhaps before I come to those I will try to address the particular issue that has been raised.

When I referred to a two-tier system at the beginning, it was the difference between people in direct provision and those in emergency reception and orientation centres. The difference with those asylum seekers being brought to the emergency reception and orientation centres is that when they get their papers, housing is found for them; they are not just given their papers and left to go on their own way. Recommendation No. 7 on the final page of the submission is to, "Provide people leaving direct provision with proper support for a minimum period of three months, including housing support workers as required." We know from those who have worked with people coming out of prison, other institutional environments or homelessness that it makes a huge difference to have somebody help navigate through the system, go to appointments with landlords and put documents together. It is a major step for somebody that makes quite a big practical difference to somebody. It helps to bridge a little of the hierarchy developing between a group which we deem to be possibly more in need and deserving of protection and those who do not, regardless of whether they are the same nationality.

Deputy Ó Broin made the point about people in Clondalkin getting social welfare. If those people have the protection of refugee status or subsidiary protection, the Act actually refers to social welfare, not reduced amounts. There is a major issue concerning the legality of the decision to reduce their payments to the €19.10. It is not uniform across the country that people can access social welfare or full social welfare payments in order to build up a bit of capital. There is a long wait even for social housing. We are not arguing that this group should jump a queue but it is about having equal access, even to the private rented market. I apologise if this is slightly outside the committee's remit but that really helps people to get on their feet in whatever housing exists. Therefore, they can perhaps compete on a more equal footing, if we ignore the additional disadvantages they have.

Members will have to forgive us for putting some issues on record, even if they do not come under the remit of this committee. It concerns us that when we speak about accommodation and housing, it does not really make sense to divide it. There are particular needs of certain communities and I know representatives of Pavee Point and an organisation dealing with people coming off or on drugs will also come before the committee. There are particular needs in communities but in a sense, they are very basic. I was in front of the Central Bank on Saturday when we ran a refugee rights desk. We invited people to come up and leave a message of solidarity. Some people we met were homeless and one guy turned up with his sleeping bag. He left a message to refugees to "stay strong". That is out of recognition that there is not necessarily a distinction. I take the point and we will put something very briefly to address more particularly issues coming from the committee. I hope the two recommendations might be of some benefit.