Seanad debates

Wednesday, 29 January 2003

Immigration Bill, 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed).

 

2:30 pm

Photo of Michael McDowellMichael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

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 squarely the obligation of the applicant. Persons in direct provision will have access to relevant materials and will already have been notified of their obligations under the system. Why should responsibility be cast upon the Minister? If he or she did not find out where individuals were, the system would fall down because he or she would fail to notify the commissioner of the location of a person.

We have to employ common sense and grasp the following: if one comes to Ireland seeking asylum, one is undertaking a series of obligations, one of which is to co-operate fully with the asylum process. We are not going down the road the Tories are suggesting in Britain of putting people in detention, or the Australian route. We have taken the position which I support of leaving asylum applicants at liberty within our society, free to move here and there and spend their time as they wish. We have provided for them with direct provision of accommodation. However, the corollary of this is that the onus is on the asylum applicant to provide information for the Refugee Applications Commissioner in order that he or she can correspond with him or her. This strikes a fair balance.

If the Minister was detaining people in centres around the country – a move which nobody in this House would advocate at this point – I could appreciate him or her being obliged to notify the Refugee Applications Commissioner of where a person is. However, since the person is, effectively, at liberty, though obliged to reside in the accommodation provided by the State, it is reasonable to require him or her to keep the commissioner fully up to date as to where he or she is at any given point.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.