Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I can understand the Senator's motives in moving this amendment, but I ask her to consider the practicability of the proposal. In section 6(g), the Bill amends section 19(2) of the Refugee Act, 1996, by removing the requirement to obtain the consent of the Minister prior to the publication – in a written publication available to the public – or broadcast of matters likely to lead members of the public to identify a person or an applicant for refugee status. The requirement to obtain the consent of the person will, of course, remain, but the intent of section 19(2) is to protect the identity of the asylum seeker from public exposure. It is essential that this protection be provided as confidentiality is an important consideration for the applicant. It provides the security and peace of mind that his or her identity will not be revealed in circumstances where those from whom the asylum seeker claims to be seeking persecution might be in a position to affect the applicant or his or her connections in the state of alleged persecution. This does not mean that the applicant is barred from telling his or her story to the media since there are many legitimate ways of doing so without revealing a person's identity. To date, it has been the practice for the Minister to grant his consent under section 19(2) where the person had already given his or her permission, sometimes in the form of a letter from his or her solicitor.

The removal of the requirement to obtain the Minister's consent will streamline the procedure under section 19(2) while retaining the essential protections for the applicant. The person whose duty it is to protect the applicant will, primarily, be the applicant himself or herself and the Minister will no longer be the presumed protector. At the moment, there is a double lock with the Minister having to consent, as well as the applicant. People have misrepresented the provisions of the section, pointing to it and saying that it is an effort by the Minister to prevent the public knowing the full truth about the kinds of people regarding whom he is making decisions. The double lock was only intended to prevent asylum applicants from exploitation by the media, but it was frequently represented as a wholly unjustifiable gag imposed by the Minister to permit asylum seekers to be dealt with secretly and away from the glare of publicity. In practice, we gave consent as a matter of course, but as long as the provision regarding ministerial consent remains on the Statute Book, the law will be seen as unjust. As recently as a fortnight ago, I heard somebody state publicly that this law was wholly unjust while implying that it was part of a conspiracy to keep the public in the dark.