Mr. Enda O'Neill:

I thank the joint committee for inviting me to address it on these important matters. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees, UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, is mandated by the General Assembly to lead and co-ordinate action worldwide to protect refugees, asylum seekers and stateless persons. We have had a continuous presence in Ireland since 1998 and our supervisory role regarding compliance with the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees is recognised both in national legislation in the International Protection Act and EU legislation.

As the scope of the committee's work on this topic is broad, in my opening remarks I will focus primarily on the protection process and progress to date in implementing the recommendations made in the 2015 McMahon report. It contained 173 recommendations across three broad themes: the determination process, living conditions in accommodation centres and supports for persons in the system. The recommendations were intended to be implemented as a package, in advance of the introduction of new comprehensive legislation, to address the biggest single issue identified in the report - the length of time protection applicants had to wait for a final decision on their claim.

Chapter 6 of the report details the financial model which was developed in consultation with officials in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to project the financial costs in implementing the report in full. Paragraph 6.45 of the report states:

The financial model developed by the Working Group demonstrates conclusively that investing in decision-making not only will yield returns in reducing time spent in the system but also makes financial sense. Each year a person remains in the system gives rise to accommodation costs of €10,950 on average per applicant. The cost of decision-making is a fraction of this cost.

As members of the committee will be aware, challenges still remain as regards the length of time applicants typically spend in the system. They should have before them some recent statistics compiled by the UNHCR which point to a number of trends. The number of new applications each month has been rising moderately and consistently for some time, with an average of 319 new applications per month in the last year or 360 per month in the last two quarters. However, annual numbers of new applications are still far below the 2002 peak of 11,634 new applications and comparatively fewer than in many other EU countries. There were 5,693 applications in hand at the International Protection Office, IPO, at the end of 2018. This represents an increase on the figure of 5,183 at the end of 2017. By contrast, when the McMahon report was being drafted at the end of 2014, there were 2,402 applications in hand. The McMahon report, at paragraph 6.29, points to the reason for the increase: "The number of new protection applications in 2015 has outpaced the capacity of available resources to process these applications. A failure to provide decision making bodies with the further additional resources to process these cases will result in a new backlog affecting those in the system for shorter durations".

As a result of the failure to take steps to substantially reduce the number of cases in hand prior to the commencement of the International Protection Act 2015, transitional provisions of the Act resulted in approximately 4,000 cases being transferred to the IPO from the old tribunal, referred to as legacy applicants, on 31 Dec 2016. Despite a considerable increase in productivity by the IPO since, the number of substantive decisions taken in 2018 remained lower than the number of new applications received, at 3,319 compared to 3,673. The current median processing time for new applications received under the International Protection Act 2015 stands at 15 months. Additional resources have recently been assigned to the IPO, with a view to meeting its target to reduce the average waiting time to nine months for a first instance decision by the end of 2019. All remaining legacy applicants whose applications were considered to be live at the end of 2018 have been scheduled for interview by the IPO, with final recommendations intended to be issued in these cases by the end of quarter 2. A separate unit within the IPO is examining non-cooperation cases such as where an applicant's whereabouts is unknown and there is an ongoing lack of contact with the office. There are an estimated 1,200 applications in this category which are being worked on to bring them to finality as quickly as possible.

Notwithstanding these positive indications, I reiterate my concern about the length of time it takes to determine an application for international protection and recall the recommendation made in the McMahon report that the decision-making bodies be staffed on a continual basis with sufficient staff to ensure it can respond appropriately to the number of applications it is receiving at any given time. Just as it was in 2015, the length of time protection applicants have to wait for a final decision on their claim remains the key factor affecting their experiences in the direct provision system. Long periods spent in direct provision centres can impact on the future employability of refugees and their mental health.

I would like to make a broader point about the working group. That process benefited enormously from unique collaboration between civil society and the Government, with members displaying commendable commitment to attend weekly meetings throughout much of the duration, despite their heavy professional responsibilities. It was always envisaged that a new body, similar in structure, would continue this work after publication of the report. It is regrettable, therefore, that the recommendation to this effect was not implemented, specifically that an independent advisory board be established and given the necessary flexibility to consider all matters related and relevant to the operation of the system. An annual review of the system was also recommended, with a view to making recommendations to guard against future backlogs, for example, a failure to provide adequate resources for all decision-making bodies.

On living conditions in accommodation centres and supports for persons in the system, the committee should have been given a copy of an article written last year by one of my colleagues, Caroline Stephens, entitled, Developments in the Direct Provision System since the McMahon Report. Members should also have before them a submission on measuring outcomes and supporting refugee integration. Time will not allow me to specifically address the contents of these submissions in my opening address. However, I would welcome questions members might have about them or any other matter relevant to their deliberations.