Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

In my statement to the Dáil during the Adjournment Debate on Tuesday, 22 March 2005, I dealt with the deportation of the person concerned. In my statement during the Adjournment Debate in Seanad Éireann on Thursday, 24 March 2005, I dealt with the basis of my decision to allow the person to return. The proposal put to me to deport this person was made in the belief of the proposing immigration service official that the order, when made, would not be implemented before June 2005, when the young man in question would be able to sit the leaving certificate examination for which he had been studying at Palmerstown Community School since September 2002.

As is usual regarding persons in respect of whom deportation orders have been made, this person was instructed to present himself to the Garda National Immigration Bureau on 3 March 2005. He did not do so and, consequently, was classified as an evader. He subsequently presented himself at the Garda National Immigration Bureau on the day of a deportation flight rather than on the earlier date specified in the letter sent to him. Consequently, he was arrested as an evader and deported. The officials involved in the deportation were acting in good faith. The assumption that he would not be deported before June 2005 was not acted on. While the deportation was authorised, its actual timing was unfortunate and I believed that to leave matters as they were was inappropriate.

It is important to understand the general procedures that apply to the execution of deportation orders. The execution of every deportation order made by me is an operational order by An Garda Síochána. It is the Garda's duty to enforce such orders in accordance with the law and it has never been my or my predecessors' practice to assume a direct role in operational matters for a good reason. Under the laws enshrined in the Immigration Act 1999, a person who is the subject of a deportation order is under a legal obligation to leave the State. However, compliance with the law in this regard is minimal and enforcement is necessary if the integrity of the asylum and immigration system is to be maintained. As the Supreme Court has acknowledged, failed asylum seekers do not have a right to remain in the State but these people are not snatched arbitrarily or suddenly off the streets. Before I make a deportation order, the person in question is given three options. He or she can leave the State voluntarily, consent to the making of a deportation order or make representations within 15 days as to why he or she should be allowed to remain in the State. Assistance regarding voluntary departure is underpinned by special programmes established in co-operation with IOM. For three years, up to 31 December 2004, 1,879 voluntary returns have been accommodated by IOM in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Regarding all files submitted to me containing recommendations for deportation, it is plainly necessary for officials to collate and summarise all relevant information in order to present it in a coherent and consistent format for me to consider. Almost without exception, this involves a summary of all available information on the facts, as set out in section 3(6) of the Immigration Act and in consideration of the refoulement issues and-or other significant issues relating to the case. A recommendation is then made to me by an officer at a grade not lower than assistant principal.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

The entire file is then submitted to my office for a decision. It is brought from Burgh Quay to my office at St. Stephen's Green for that purpose. The volume of such files can be understood from the fact since January 2001, in the region of 10,200 deportation orders have been signed by me or my predecessor. During 2004, the number of individual cases varied from ten to 20 on each working day. This is a direct result of the Government's overall asylum processing strategies and the commitment of resources to this area and is likely to continue to increase in scale.

Deputies should be aware that litigation by way of judicial review proceedings is a regular consequence of deportation cases, with 361 such cases live at present.

In view of the volume of the deportation files it is clearly unrealistic to think it possible for me or any other Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to remember the precise details of every individual case. While, I have no recollection of reading the particular file to which the Deputy refers, my general practice is, in some cases, to read and consider the summary and, in other exceptional cases, to read and consider the entire file.

The approach outlined above is the only realistic way of dealing with the volume of cases fairly and efficiently and is in accordance with the Carltona principle which recognises that the whole system of departmental organisation and administration is based on the view that Ministers, being responsible to Parliament, will ensure that important duties are committed to experienced officials. In every case, I sign the deportation order and the order is made by the Minister as a matter of law. This approach is typical of that taken in Common Law countries where ministerial decisions are made in accordance with the Carltona principle.

Finally, I refer briefly to our asylum determination process. Some commentators have referred to the fact that asylum determinations take a considerable period of time to complete and that large numbers of people are in the asylum process for a long duration. This is no longer true. Huge progress has been made in the area of asylum processing over recent years following the huge investment by the Government in this area. The progress made to date is illustrated by both the general reduction in processing timescales in the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the substantial reduction in the number of asylum applications on hands.

In terms of timescales, a new accelerated process has been introduced for prioritised asylum applications with a first instance decision provided by ORAC within an average of 13 working days and an appeal on the papers, where applicable, provided in some six working days by the RAT. At present prioritised cases comprise some 54% of all applications.

In relation to cases on hand, only 900 cases are in the asylum system for more than six months. This can be contrasted with the fact that there were some 6,500 cases over six months in the system in September 2001 and that some 25,000 asylum applications have been received in total in the State since January 2002. We can be justifiably proud of this result.

As I mentioned earlier, the Government has made a huge investment in this area and this expenditure ranges across several Departments.

Overall, in the region of €375 million was spent on asylum related services in 2004, a small proportion of which also relates to services provided for other non-nationals. This figure was compiled following consultations with range of Departments and offices which provide services to asylum seekers, namely, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, including the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, the Reception and Integration Agency and the Refugee Legal Service, the Departments of Social and Family Affairs, Health and Children, Education and Science, the Office of Public Works and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor.

This scale of investment leaves us with an asylum determination system which compares with the best in the world in terms of fairness, decision making, determination, structure and support services. It is also worth pointing out that it still remains a fact that over 90% of the applicants for asylum, after been through a system which is highly regarded internationally, including by the UNHCR, are found not to be in need of international protection.

See this speech in context