The High Court has heard that the State is experiencing an "International Protection emergency, and it has taken the "necessary and possible steps" to meet its obligations to those seeking asylum here "in that context".
On the second day of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission's (IHREC) case against the State over its failure to provide accommodation to newly arrived asylum seekers, Senior Counsel for the State, David Conlan Smith told the court that the increase in numbers seeking protection were "entirely beyond the control of the State".
Mr Conlan Smith said that the "migratory pressures were not foreseeable" and the State was claiming "Force Majeure in light of migratory pressure".
The court heard that between 2019 and 2023, the European Union had seen the numbers seeking protection increase by 59%, while Ireland had seen an increase in 185%.
Mr Conlan Smith told the court that on 1 June 2022, the State was providing accommodation to 8,582 International Protection applicants.
He said the Government has increased accommodation "by a multiple of 11 in two years".
Today, the court heard that 96,000 people seeking protection are being accommodated, a figure that includes both Ukrainian beneficiaries of temporary protection and International Protection applicants.
Mr Conlan Smith said IP applicants accounted for 30,366 of these, almost a third.
"The figures are stark and show the scale of the challenge posed and it cannot be said, having regard to the roll out of accommodation...that there is any case of what could be described as Government inaction or indifference," he said
"The State's position is that the Government has taken the necessary steps to in the present circumstances to address the challenge," Mr Conlan Smith said.
Lack of accommodation is 'real issue'
The Senior Counsel for the State told the High Court that the "real issue here is accommodation, the lack of accommodation"
He added that while the court had not heard what the commission would suggest to remedy this, it was "fair to say" that it was "asking the court to in essence require the State to perhaps double or triple the Daily Expenses Allowance [€113.80 which is paid weekly].. and or they are asking the State to provide very large amounts of accommodation immediately".
On the first issue, Mr Conlan Smith said that this would not address other obstacles to accommodation that have been cited, such as a lack of credit card or passport.
"The State cannot fix that problem," he said.
On the provision of accommodation at scale and quickly, Mr Conlan Smith said that this was "not a real world argument" and that "accommodation cannot be brought online at the drop of a hat".
In relation to last year's case taken by an asylum seeker, known as 'SY', Mr Conlan Smith said that the State had accepted that there was a breach of regulations, but did not accept that there was a breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights or the Receptions Conditions Directive.
In last year's case the High Court found that the State was in breach of the charter.
Mr Conlan Smith said that that had not been accepted, but that the State did not appeal.
Counsel for the State outlined how in that case the applicant had a €28 Dunnes Stores voucher, €15 of his own, and was not in receipt of a Daily Expenses Allowance of €38.80 or any additional needs payments.
"In that specific context the State accepted a breach of the Regulations" Mr Conlan Smith said.
He outlined that, since then, an enhanced package of measures for unaccommodated International
Protection applicants had been put in place.
Senior Counsel for IHREC Eoin McCullagh had said that the "net question" for the High Court was whether increasing the weekly allowance paid to IP applicants by €75 "is sufficient to meet (the State's) obligation to provide accommodation", as all other elements of the enhanced package offered by the State were things that international protection applicants were already entitled to.
However Mr Conlon Smith told the court that it was "not correct to approach it as €75, and that's it".
He said that the "total package" of measures provided and the "multifaceted approach" taken by the State had to be considered.
The package as outlined by Mr Conlan Smith consisted of the increased weekly allowance of €113.80, which includes the additional €75, access to additional needs payments which, he said "can be applied to accommodation", a €100 supermarket voucher which he said was four times the value of the one offered in 2023, and access to "comprehensive" services provided by homeless day services, including "access to food, showers, hygiene facilities, phone charging, wifi" and at certain services "tents".
The High Court has been asked to decide if the failure to provide accommodation to newly-arrived International Protection applicants is a breach of an applicant's right to dignity under Article 1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Mr Conlan Smith told the court that it was the State's position that the failure to offer accommodation by itself did not amount to a breach to a person's right to dignity under the charter.
"Could it be that a person who turns up at the IPO offices and is refused accommodation, that that is a breach in itself of Article 1 of the charter?" he asked.
"The State's position is that cannot be the case, that there would have to be some form of impact, some significant impact that would have to be established to the satisfaction of the court," he said.
As to those who were rough sleeping, affidavits by Assistant Secretary General at the Department of Integration David Delaney said that the numbers of referrals by gardaí of rough sleeping asylum seekers "were relatively low which would suggest that with the notable exception of the Mount Street area in and around the IPO (before 1 May)... the number of IP applicants who are street homeless is not significant".
IHREC has disputed this.
Mr Justice Barry O'Donnell queried why the State could not provide specific figures in relation to such referrals and said that the term "not significant" was "totally subjective".
