Mr. Nick Henderson:

We thank the committee for its interest in this issue. I will speak on three matters: the state of direct provision as we gradually emerge from the pandemic; delays in the system; and alternatives to direct provision. As Dr. Lannon set out, and as I am sure the committee will have gathered from its interactions with other important actors, we believe the system is at close to breaking point. All the indicators are flashing red. Approximately 5,000 people are awaiting a first instance decision. The medium length of stay in direct provision is 27 months. There are approximately 1,800 unrelated people who are sharing bedrooms. There have been more than 670 Covid cases in direct provision. There are more than 80 locations across the country where people have been accommodated. Delays in the system are chronic and almost as bad as ever. We are at a very serious and grave moment in the long history of direct provision and our international protection process.

Yesterday, Doras launched a report on delays. I thank the Deputies who came to meet us outside the convention centre. We greatly appreciate that. We did a small survey of people we are working with to hear directly from them, as people in the system with lived experience, about what the impact is on them of delays. There were feelings of stress, frustration, wasting of skills and quite devastatingly there were feelings of suicidal ideation, family break up and divorces. Delays undermine the integrity of the system. There is a perfect storm of a pre-pandemic backlog which, combined with Covid-19-induced closures of decision-making bodies, has caused delays to shoot up to the point where if a person applied for asylum today, without a serious reduction in waiting times and additional resources, it is likely that they would wait two years for the first decision alone and might then have to appeal. The system is in a really bad place and this matters not least because of the White Paper and the shared collective aim of ending direct provision. It is much harder to create a new system with 7,000 people in it, as Dr. Lannon said, compared with one of 3,500 people, for example. We do have a road map out of that. Dr. Lannon has pointed to the recommendation by Catherine Day's advisory group on this. It was not picked up in the White Paper, which we think is an omission in that document.

We know what is wrong with the system. We have had multiple reports. If we put the reports on direct provision one on top of the other, we would probably reach the ceiling of a standard room. What do we do about it? There has been a crucial moment in that the White Paper refers and gives an intent to end direct provision. I hope and believe that all of society across the political spectrum is committed to ending the system. There is no doubt that it will be hugely challenging. We have done some research on alternatives to direct provision. We began this a couple of years ago. In January, we produced a report compiled by an organisation Campbell Tickell, a UK housing consultancy on how to implement practical alternatives to direct provision, in which we made several recommendations. First, that different streams of accommodation should be created. There cannot be one type of accommodation. Some should be developed by approved housing bodies, AHBs. We need to build accommodation and to explore community-led alternatives. We should consider creating a new approved housing body dedicated to this kind of accommodation or consider pivoting an existing body. We need to think in an agile and dynamic way so that we can use large and small AHBs. Many smaller AHBs across the country could be engaged on this. There has to be state-built accommodation. We believe there is significant power in community regeneration schemes. I can share a seminar we did in June with some housing experts. Orla Hegarty, an academic and architect at UCD, spoke on the huge untapped pool of vacant urban accommodation across the country that could be used for this. We need to think about removing barriers to independence. People do come to this country and seek protection and asylum but they do not enter direct provision because they may be able to live independently or they have family they can live with. If we can increase independence, that group of people can grow and there is less need for accommodation. We recommend that the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth maintain responsibility for this issue in the short term but that said responsibility should eventually move to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage.

There needs to be more urgency in White Paper implementation. We recognise there will be a period of thinking but the deadline is 2024 and we are already half way through 2021 and are yet to see much if any tangible change. Budget 2022 will be extremely important. We are trying to prepare a submission on this. All stakeholders will have to watch the budget carefully to see what is dedicated to the area. There must be a continuation of the system and a whole-of-government approach. We feel it is notable that the Taoiseach gave a foreword to the White Paper. Although the White Paper has omissions and deficits, it sets out the theory, desire and intent. What we need now is implementation. We could take various strategies about closing down existing direct provision centres, identifying the worst ones. Dr. Lannon spoke about the centre in Limerick. We recommended closing emergency accommodation but that has been particularly difficult. It has to be done sensitively. People have built up lives. We need to think better about how we engage our communities. There is great power in local communities in Ireland. The welcome local communities have given to people seeking asylum has been incredibly positive in the vast majority of cases but we need to work better with communities and help them to prepare to give the welcome that they can.

Ending the system and implementing both a new type of accommodation and a new system presents major challenges but we believe the weight of history against direct provision, and all its problems, compels us to do so. Of all the reports on direct provision, the one launched recently by the Ombudsman for Children is the most devastating and should compel us all to do as much as we can to end the system.