Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

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 applicant.

If receipt rather than sending was the trigger, then the organs of the State dealing with this matter would never know with certainty when the clock started ticking. That being the case, it would be almost impossible to prove in court compliance with the statutory time limits. It would be a matter of speculation as to whether something was eaten by the dog, mislaid or not delivered. I cannot envisage circumstances where it would be possible for the State to enforce this law to say the time started on one date and ended on another. That would not work.

When one is dealing with cases of non-co-operation it is more sensible and rational to have a verifiable date from which the clock starts ticking, rather than leaving it to the non-co-operative person to establish this.