Results 81-100 of 18,437 for speaker:Michael McDowell

Seanad: Immigration Bill, 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (29 Jan 2003)

Michael McDowell: This is a standard form section, which is inserted in most cases where provision is made for an offence that can be committed by a body corporate and the intention is to extend liability not to the piece of paper and the seal of the company, which can hardly be put in a dock in court, but to the person who makes the decision, that is, the director or officer of the company who brings about...

Seanad: Immigration Bill, 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (29 Jan 2003)

Michael McDowell: The position is that this happens on occasion but it is entirely informal and, strictly, ultra vires for a tribunal member to express such a recommendation. However, the view of the tribunal member in such a matter is irrelevant since he or she is there to determine one fact only, that is, whether the applicant who is appealing to the tribunal is entitled to be considered a refugee. An...

Seanad: Immigration Bill, 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (29 Jan 2003)

Michael McDowell: This amendment is opposed. The interview conducted by an immigration officer under subsection 8(1) of the Refugee Act, 1996 takes place where a person arriving at the frontiers of the State seeks asylum and is for the purpose of establishing certain basic facts: whether the person wishes to make an application for a declaration under section 8 of the Refugee Act, 1996 and, if he or she does...

Seanad: Immigration Bill, 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (29 Jan 2003)

Michael McDowell: If the Senator looks at the section, far from being a barrier, it is facilitating. It requires certain matters to be drawn to the attention of potential asylum seekers. We could have a situation where no interview could take place under the section at Dublin Airport, Dún Laoghaire or anywhere else unless a lawyer was present. To make any sense of the amendment it would be necessary for the...

Seanad: Immigration Bill, 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (29 Jan 2003)

Michael McDowell: This consists of a set of amendments to the Refugee Act, 1996, which are designed to address the problems of abandoned cases in a way that preserves the standards of fairness to individual applicants of the present arrangements but at the same time improves on the efficiency of the system, an improvement which is in the interests of asylum-seekers as a whole and in the interests of the...

Seanad: Immigration Bill, 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (29 Jan 2003)

Michael McDowell: I agree with Senator Morrissey that a two month period is grossly excessive. I cannot imagine what could happen in the remaining seven weeks which could not happen in the first working week or five working days. I might consider, before Report Stage or perhaps when the Bill is brought before the Dáil, varying the five days upward, but I could not agree to a term of two months. That would be...

Seanad: Immigration Bill, 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (29 Jan 2003)

Michael McDowell: In case I have misled the House, the effect of the amendment would be to allow a period of two months for the person concerned to establish an address at which he or she could be contacted. If I allowed that period to take effect, effectively, many people would be at liberty to keep us in the dark as to where they were staying and remain at large in our society for a two month period. One...

Seanad: Immigration Bill, 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (29 Jan 2003)

Michael McDowell: I oppose this amendment because it would introduce another stage of bureaucracy. If a person was fixed up with direct provision, somebody would have to notify the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister, in turn, would have to notify the Refugee Applications Commissioner of the address of the individual. This would add two bureaucratic steps to what is fairly and...

Seanad: Immigration Bill, 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (29 Jan 2003)

Michael McDowell: I am grateful to the Senator for tabling this amendment. She is correct, there is a typographical error and I propose to amend it by leave of the House. Amendment to amendment, agreed to.

Seanad: Immigration Bill, 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (29 Jan 2003)

Michael McDowell: Briefly, I am opposed to this amendment. I do not think our provision is over the top. The Bill casts a legal duty upon asylum applicants to comply with the law. It is not a moral duty. I am not legislating for morality but for a crisp, firm, legal duty. This is not a desideratum, to use a Latin phrase, but a sine qua non. As far as the policy of the Act is concerned, there is a clear...

Seanad: Immigration Bill, 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (29 Jan 2003)

Michael McDowell: I am against this. The primary onus is to notify in advance that one is not turning up for an interview. This is what I would expect from someone acting in good faith. The three day period provides a period of grace after the interview to deal with unexpected domestic difficulties that might arise on the day. If I say the period is one month then nobody will notify in advance, nobody will...

Seanad: Immigration Bill, 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (29 Jan 2003)

Michael McDowell: Again I am opposing it. The purpose of this is to provide clarity and certainty. If I were to accede to either of these two amendments, I would be saying that there was a further period in every case in which people could re-open the case. The term used in the amendment is "reasonable excuse is subsequently furnished". We would then see people going down to the Four Courts to determine...

Seanad: Immigration Bill, 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (29 Jan 2003)

Michael McDowell: As I said in my opening comments on this entire amendment, the duty to co-operate is being put in a central place by these amendments. Senator Tuffy asked what constitutes a failure to co-operate. It is a bit like an elephant; it is easy to know it when you see it but it is a lot more difficult to define it. I do not intend to set out in written form all the conduct that could or could not...

Seanad: Immigration Bill, 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (29 Jan 2003)

Michael McDowell: I simply oppose this. If somebody is not co-operating, why would the commissioner of the tribunal not follow up the matter or take action on foot of it? The insertion of crisp language in the use of the term "shall" makes clear to the person contemplating whether he or she should co-operate the consequences of failure to do so.

Seanad: Immigration Bill, 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (29 Jan 2003)

Michael McDowell: The two month period is quite unreasonable. Given the amount of time taken by the RAC and the RAT to deal with these cases two months would be entirely disproportionate. There may be some case for a very narrow incremental adjustment from ten working days. I will consider that on Report Stage. Nothing of the order of the Senator's amendment commends itself to me.

Seanad: Immigration Bill, 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (29 Jan 2003)

Michael McDowell: I am opposed to this amendment because it would not work. If the applicant is unco-operative, and this is the kind of case we are dealing with, he or she simply has to deny receiving the notice or attempt avoiding receipt by failing to provide information about a change of address. This would effectively undermine the entire asylum process and would only serve to reward the unco-operative...

Seanad: Immigration Bill, 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (29 Jan 2003)

Michael McDowell: I am opposed to this amendment for obvious reasons. Amendment to amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Seanad: Immigration Bill, 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (29 Jan 2003)

Michael McDowell: This would allow an applicant to appeal against his or her own decision to withdraw an application or against his or her own actions in failing to pursue an application. That would be unreasonable. It would also have the effect of turning the Refugee Appeals Tribunal into an investigating body of first instance. If there was no material for it to consider except that which was put before it...

Seanad: Immigration Bill, 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (29 Jan 2003)

Michael McDowell: This amendment is well made and correct. I accept it. Amendment to amendment agreed to.

Seanad: Immigration Bill, 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (29 Jan 2003)

Michael McDowell: We are opposing this amendment. This, effectively, is an amendment to achieve the purpose of allowing applicants to appeal against their own decisions which we regard as patently illogical. Allowing people to appeal against the consequences of their own actions is equally untenable. If it were the case that the State unfairly deemed something to be a failure to co-operate, the State knows...