Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

Senators will recall that in our debate on Committee Stage, I gave an undertaking that I would bring forward a Report Stage amendment to make it clear that the withdrawal provisions provided for in section 6 of the Bill would not apply in circumstances where an applicant is found in breach of section 9(4)(b) of the Act of 1996. Paragraph (b) of subsection (4) of that section prohibits an applicant from entering employment or carrying on a business, trade or profession during the period before the final determination of his or her application.

I said to the House that I would not regard breach of the ban on employment by applicants as ipso facto indicative of a desire to abandon the application. However, I want to make it clear I regard such breaches as a serious failure to meet the requirements of the Act of 1996. It is equally clear that breaches of that nature do not in themselves mean the person is failing to co-operate in the investigation of his or her application for asylum – although I would deprecate it. If, for example, an applicant for asylum was to be offered casual employment for one or two days at some stage, I would not regard the mere fact of that being proven or established as fair grounds for saying that, regardless of the merits of that applicant's original claim, they should be deemed to have abandoned it. The effect of the Government amendment is to provide that the mere breach of the obligation not to work, although it is a serious matter, will not be relied upon by the State as grounds for concluding that the asylum application is itself devoid of substance and has been abandoned.

I commend the amendments to the House and note that the Labour Senators seem to support the Government's text.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 13 not moved.