Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

The effect of the amendment would be to allow an appeal in all cases except where the person fails to provide an address within five working days, as provided for in section 6(b)(ii) of the Bill, which amends section 9 of the 1996 Act, or under subsection 14(b) of section 9 of the 1996 Act, where a person in detention indicates a wish to leave the State and his or her application is deemed withdrawn as a consequence of his or her leaving.

The amendment would also allow an applicant to appeal his or her own decision to withdraw an application or his or own actions or failure to act in pursuing an application. I fail to see the point in allowing an appeal in the case of a person who has abandoned his asylum application. If a person says he does not want to pursue an application it is clearly illogical, if not to suggest a case of bureaucracy gone mad, to invite him to appeal against his own decision. In the same way, if an applicant, by his own actions or omissions, demonstrates in a way that can leave no doubt in anyone's mind that the intention is not to proceed with the asylum application, is it the case that the applicant should be allowed to appeal against his own actions or omissions or their consequences? That is the logic of the amendment.