David Norris (Independent)

It is instructive that in all five cases cited, the chief appeals officer rejected arguments by the Department of Social and Family Affairs that the people in the asylum process could not meet the habitual residence condition, a test introduced in 2004 to prevent a feared influx of so-called welfare tourists. So-called welfare tourism has been dealt with by the habitual residence condition. The chief appeals officer found that this cannot be brushed aside completely. The Minister is trying to redefine matters.

This is all about money, as the Minister has more or less accepted. I challenge the Minister on her assertion that these people had no right to be in the country. They may not have had a permanent right but they have every right to be in the country while they are appealing. I note that the Minister is acknowledging this to be correct. It may be that we have been here a long time and the phraseology is inexact even though that is uncharacteristic of this Minister. I do not accuse her of any malice in this matter. The House should know the attitude of the Department. I do not take great pleasure in attacking the Department in a blanket sense but on this issue I feel a responsibility to do so. One can see the attitude in the fact that there was a stay put on payments during this period. The Department refused to pay, which is questionable behaviour. In the four successful appeals, where the Department of Social and Family Affairs asked for a review by the chief appeals officer, it refused to make payments that had been approved by the appeals officer until the reviews were completed. FLAC challenged this on the basis that reviews were not formal appeals and, unlike an appeal court, the chief appeals officer had no power to put a stay on the payments pending his decision and he had not been asked to do so. It was the Department, the unsuccessful party to the appeals, that had unilaterally decided not to pay and the applicants were left with no way of appealing against that decision. FLAC issued judicial review proceedings in one case to try to compel the Department to pay. However, the chief appeals officer gave his decision in favour of the applicant a few days before the hearing date so it was then settled. The attitude of the Department is to do people out of their entitlements. How much will that save? It is bad faith and this is a squalid decision. I warned the Government against the process, which appears to be particularly concentrated in the Department, of establishing public bodies, giving them a statutory remit to make decisions on matters of fairness, justice and equality and then when clear and binding decisions are made, the Government overturns them by further legislation instead of addressing them. That is appalling behaviour whatever the economic circumstances of the case.

This is not welfare tourism. What about the people who have been stuck in the process for four or five years because of our inefficiency?