Ms Sarah Owen:

The CSO statistics that are available show that 30,200 people returned in the year to April 2021. Prior to that, the figure for the previous year was 28,900, and for the year before that, 26,900. The figures fluctuate, but the pandemic has meant more people have returned. By contrast, the number of people who left to go abroad in that same period, when 30,200 returned, was 22,800, a significant difference. Even so, the year was 2021, so people were not going many places.

There are limitations to these statistics. They come from the Central Statistics Office and are quite broad. It is very difficult to break them down and get figures for people who are returning and are undocumented. The figures do not go into that level of detail. Through the emigrant support programme and all the groups engaging with individuals abroad, numbers are available through reporting we all carry out biannually but, again, that can be difficult to pinpoint. What we do know is that, earlier during the pandemic, people who came back were coming back in much more vulnerable circumstances because the pandemic, ultimately, was a push factor. They had got to the point where they had exhausted their avenues of support and, therefore, they had no choice but to return. It is not just that people return in a planned way or during a crisis. Sometimes it depends on whether they have a choice about whether to return or whether they just have to return.

I might mention the emotional and psychological impact of return and address that point. In 2016, we published a report, Home for Good?, in which we asked 400 Irish emigrants about their experiences of returning home in the five years prior to that. A stark 20% of respondents stated the unexpected emotional costs of return were something they were really surprised by, meaning they had thought they were going home but did not always factor in the fact that, because they may have left when they were in their early 20s and were then coming back with a new family and children, and because their families had got older, their old networks in Ireland would not have been the same as when they had left, which obviously had an emotional impact on them. There were also some contributions from respondents who stated they were starting every sentence with "When I lived in Australia" or "When I lived in the States", and they were often then shut down by friends and family who had heard quite enough of that. All of that contributed to the idea that there is a period of adjustment and that return is not for everyone. Sometimes people return to Ireland only to find they were happier in the US, the UK, Australia, Namibia or wherever they were living. That is important to note because it will allow people to have that choice and to make migratory decisions that suit them. We approach our work in such a way that we work with people in vulnerable circumstances and that is the focus of what we do, but we neither promote nor dissuade return. We try to help people make informed decisions about their migration that are right for them.

Turning to the HRC, it sounds as though many of the committee members are well versed on this. It has been around, unfortunately, for quite a long time. Improvements have been made to the condition but we believe it still affects people who are in the most vulnerable circumstances, such as people coming back in destitution, with no income whatsoever. They might be being deported, with only the shirt on their back, and it can be difficult for someone in those circumstances to provide documentary evidence to show they have returned to Ireland for good and are resuming their residence here, or that they have maintained their residence here. They may not have links with their family members or might be estranged. They are certainly not going back into a tenancy, opening a bank account or taking the steps that would show, very effectively, that they are resuming their residence here. Nevertheless, we always make the argument that in the case of someone who is coming back and has had no option but to do so, their centre of interest can only be in Ireland for the purposes of this condition, and we are successful at taking cases on appeal and overturning negative decisions. We believe that with additional training for front-line deciding officers, this issue could be lessened. The understanding of the vulnerable circumstances in which people come back, and some acceptance of the fact they will not always be able to show they have resumed their residence here, would be quite helpful.

Moreover, collecting numbers at a social welfare appeals office level on the number of decisions for Irish citizens that have been overturned would be useful. Those figures, which are not currently published, would help to form a picture of the number of people who have been and continue to be affected by this issue because they apply to most payments where somebody is means tested. As my colleague Mr. King said, we sometimes find a person will apply for, say, a jobseeker's payment and a decision on that will not be made quickly. He or she may have applied for an interim payment such as the supplementary welfare allowance, and a decision on that will not be made until the primary payment has been refused. Fundamentally, that leaves the person without access to any sort of income support, which can be very challenging at that critical moment and can serve to make a difficult situation worse.