It is hard to argue with the recommendations of the external advisory group on accommodation for asylum seekers.
Chaired by Catherine Day, a former secretary general of the European Commission, the group has told Minister for Integration Roderic O’Gorman – in a report to be published shortly – that the decision-making process on asylum applications must be speeded up.
A more proactive approach towards combating misinformation and false narratives around the process and asylum seekers generally is also needed, it says. The group homes in on one canard enthusiastically propagated by the far right – that asylum seekers are “unvetted”. In fact, they are photographed, fingerprinted and their claims vigorously assessed.
Both of these central recommendations fall into the category of easier said than done. Delivering the first is fundamentally a question of resources and of ramping up the process without damaging its integrity. The middle of the range for first decisions is currently a year. The group believes it can be reduced to six months.
The second recommendation – if it is to be effective – requires considerable dexterity in policing social media platforms. The Government has had some limited success in this regard, particularly in relation to the riots in Dublin last November.
As part of a long-term solution, the report calls for State-owned reception and integration facilities with a capacity for up to 15,000 asylum seekers, to be built on State land. This would ameliorate some of the impact on local communities in terms of competition for accommodation. Even through the group suggests the use of emergency powers, if necessary, this will also take time. A White Paper on developing six State-owned facilities is due to go to the Cabinet shortly.
The other significant recommendation of the group is more immediately actionable: doing a better job of allaying the concerns of local communities about the arrival of asylum seekers in their midst.
The current approach of leaving engagement until the last minute – presumably to avoid organised opposition – is neither fair nor effective. Post hoc fixes to placate the local community are inevitably required. It is also counterproductive and has contributed to a wave of protests against putative facilities for housing asylum seekers, some based on false information.
The group recommends that once a possible site has been identified the local community should be involved so that the potential negative impacts on local services can be identified and mitigated.
And what better place to start than with the six new facilities that the State plans to develop, own and operate this year? A list of potential locations should be published as soon as it is feasible.