Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I am not blaming the HSE in the slightest. I have full confidence that the HSE will take every step in accordance with its statutory duty to protect minors. Others, particularly support groups, should see the wood from the trees. No group of adults or political lobby has the right to take children or minors and put them in the way of self-harm. It is fundamentally wrong and must be condemned out of hand.

Asylum applicants from Afghanistan amounted to 24 people in 2003, 106 in 2004, 142 in 2005 and 40 to the end of April of this year. After a fair and comprehensive determination process at first instance in ORAC, there were 30 grant applications, which is more than 10%, in the period 2003-06 to date. This compares to 232 refusals during the same period. At appeal stage in the RAT, the number of Afghan refugees granted status was 23 in the same period. In total, there were 53 grant applications, an undeniably high recognition rate. The number refused status at appeal was 76 during the same period. It is emphatically not the case that anyone who travelled from Afghanistan to Ireland by whatever means — there are no direct flights — can demand to remain in Ireland simply by pointing to the disturbed or dangerous conditions that may obtain in parts of that country. If that were the case, the State would be obliged to accommodate any person claiming to be an Afghan.

In accordance with section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, a person who has failed the asylum process and been refused refugee status in the State is entitled to make representations to the Minister within 15 working days setting out reasons as to why he or she should not be deported, voluntarily leave the State or consent to deportation. This is colloquially referred to as the humanitarian leave to remain phase.

Following consideration of each case, a decision is taken on whether to deport or grant temporary leave to remain. Section 3(6) of the Act requires the Minister to consider 11 factors, including representations received by or on behalf of the person, family and domestic circumstances, humanitarian considerations etc. The safety of returning a person, or refoulement as it is referred to, is fully considered in every case when deciding whether to make a deportation order. This means that a person shall not be expelled from the State or returned in any manner whatsoever to a state where, in the opinion of the Minister, the life or freedom of that person would be threatened on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform uses extensive country of origin information drawn from different independent sources, including the UNHCR, in evaluating the safety of making returns to third countries. I am satisfied that the procedures followed in all cases ensure that all asylum requests are considered in a comprehensive and fair manner.

At the request of the individuals concerned, a meeting was held with senior officials of my Department on Tuesday afternoon at the headquarters of the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service. The meeting was attended by some of the persons in the cathedral, representatives of the Church of Ireland and the chairperson of the Afghan Social Cultural Centre and the Afghan Society of Ireland. Absolutely no negotiations took place at this meeting. It presented an opportunity for the individuals in question to communicate their issues and concerns to the Department.

At the meeting my officials, while clarifying that they were not in a position to speak about individual cases, took the opportunity to outline the comprehensive statutory framework and procedures governing the asylum and leave to remain process, which I have just explained to this House yet again. It was also pointed out at the meeting that the Government is not in a position to concede to demands from the protestors with regard to the awarding of residency status in this State. No decision will be taken, except in the context of the normal statutory framework governing the asylum and leave to remain process.

It was further pointed out that concessions of the sort demanded would have major negative consequences for the asylum process. At times there can be over 100 nationalities in our asylum system and to concede to such group demands from the protestors would have inevitable negative consequences for the entire refugee determination process. There is no doubt that it would also act as a pull factor in terms of a major increase in asylum applicants on the basis of a perception that they would benefit from similar action. I am not going down that road and the Belgian experience is warning enough for me and the Government of the consequences of making bad decisions in the face of such tactics.

The UNHCR representative in Ireland offered to meet a representative group of the protestors this evening. That meeting has taken place and I am grateful to the representative for the intervention.

I reiterate what the Taoiseach said in this House yesterday, that we simply cannot operate our asylum and leave to remain process on the basis of caving in to threats of hunger strikes or the occupation of historical buildings. I have, in the past, been confronted with threats of hunger strike by people who have sewn their mouths shut to demonstrate their determination. I have been confronted with threats of suicide, self-harm and so forth. It has been our invariable practice to refuse to be influenced by such tactics. No democratic society can do business on that basis and the Irish people would not tolerate us capitulating in such a fashion.

See this speech in context