David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

In this regard, Senators should be aware that in agreeing the European impact on immigration and asylum at the European Council in October 2008, member states made specific commitments to use only case-by-case regularisation, rather than generalised regularisation, under national law for humanitarian or economic reasons. The political commitment among member states then and now is clearly against any formal process that would in any way legitimise the status of persons present in the State without first examining the merits of individual cases. To do anything that would weaken our position in the EU in any upcoming negotiations must be avoided.

As Senators will know, the situation that prompted this Bill is one that the Government is very alive to, as reflected in our responses to date to address the delays in the protection system raised in 2014. There is no doubt that it was taking far too long for applicants to work their way through the protection system in Ireland and for a final determination to be reached on their application. However, this is a complex area of law and administration and there can be many reasons for the delays that arise as we balance the efficiency of the system with the rights of individual applicants to seek recourse by appeal or through the courts.

Since Deputy Frances Fitzgerald became Minister for Justice and Equality, a number of radical actions have been taken to address the difficulties that have arisen in this area over the years, therefore it would be helpful to the debate if I first set out what has been achieved since 2014 and the plans for the future. At the time this Bill was first introduced in 2014, approximately 3,700 persons with asylum or subsidiary protection applications had decisions pending. In terms of the number of people who it is intended to bring within the ambit of the Bill, in 2014, 48% of those persons were in the system for four years or more. Following a concerted effort by the Department in the intervening period, I am pleased to confirm to the House that this number has been very substantially reduced by a minimum of two thirds and the process is ongoing to address the remainder.

Under current law, there is a very cumbersome process for investigating such applications. The current system is multi-layered and sequential. It requires that the investigation and decision relating to the refugee application, including any appeal that may be taken in that regard, be completed first. Only then may a person who is refused refugee protection have his or her application for subsidiary protection investigated and decided upon, and appealed thereafter in the event of a negative decision. A person who is refused international protection is then liable to deportation from the State. However, as part of that process, such persons may seek permission to remain in the State under immigration law.

Senators recognised that the system was unwieldy and also the need for a simpler and more streamlined and efficient procedure by passing the International Protection Act last December which allows for a new single application process. This will replace the current system where each stage of an application is decided, and if a negative decision issues it can be appealed in a sequential time-consuming process. Overlaying all of what I have just described is the opportunity for applicants for international protection to seek leave from the High Court to judicially review each stage of the process; that is, every decision made on their application, as they make their way through the process.

While recognising the entitlement of everyone to seek redress from the courts, in very many instances the delay in finalising cases is often due to applicants challenging negative decisions by initiating judicial reviews at various stages of the process simply in order to delay the date of arrival at a final decision in their case and their departure from the State. The initiation of judicial review proceedings on any one decision can add some years to the time it takes to reach a decision in respect of that application and each stage of it. In 2014 it was estimated that approximately 2,000 applications could not be finalised because of such legal challenges. This has now been reduced to 337 current judicial reviews, with only 19 at first instance, against the Department. I am sure Senators will agree this is real and significant progress.

We all agreed in 2014 that there was a need for an efficient and resourced single application procedure. The shared acknowledgement for the existing arrangements to be changed was reflected in the introduction of a single application procedure contained in the International Protection Act 2015 which was passed by both Houses last December. The implementation of this radical reform of the complex applications process is already being actively prepared in the Department and I am confident that the Minister for Justice and Equality will be in a position to commence this Act before the end of the year. This is the approach adopted in every other European Union member state.

In addition, the Government established an independent working group to report to it on improvements to the protection process, including direct provision and other supports for asylum seekers. The working group concentrated on the length of time persons spend in the protection applications system, the non-execution of deportation orders and the impacts that court proceedings have on the finalisation of decisions. These matters were discussed in great detail by the expert group, and an effective way forward was found and has been delivered. This did not involve an amnesty as proposed by this Bill.

Before going any further and for the avoidance of doubt, Ireland is not closed to or seeking to put bureaucratic barriers in the way of immigrants or protection applicants.More than 123,000 immigrants have been granted Irish citizenship since 2000 and 117 citizenship ceremonies have been held since 2011. I am sure Senators who have been to those ceremonies have been moved by the events, by the dignity with which people were treated and the delight felt by applicants. If any Senators have not been to one such event, I urge them to attend the next one that comes up. They are a huge improvement on what went before.

Turning to the Bill before us today, while it is well intentioned and motivated by a deep concern, which I share, over the length of time people spend in the protection system, it has been superseded by the radical initiatives undertaken by the Department since our original discussion here in 2014. Therefore, in this new and changed context, we must take time to examine the wider impacts of the Bill as outlined as it could have serious negative consequences for the State.

While agreeing with and acting on the length of time issue which has been raised, as the House was informed in 2014, the core concern is that the Bill essentially amounts to a standing amnesty for those who would seek to make false protection claims in the knowledge that if they can hold out for four years, they will gain residence status. This is a potential magnet for false protection claims and irregular migration, putting further pressure on existing resources, not least in that it also confers potential benefits in respect of family numbers. Senators should be aware that in some cases outlined in the provisions before us, these exceed those available to persons who use legal migration channels. False protection claims, and any signals that would encourage them, also delay the efficient processing of genuine protection applications.

The Bill also actively incentivises the evasion of deportation orders. Fundamentally, the Bill fails to appreciate the distinction between the delays arising from the construct of the protection system, itself addressed by recent reforms, and those generated by the actions of the foreign national, including for example judicial reviews. A similar situation arises in respect of deportation orders where the individual is obliged to remove themselves from the State. This Bill would alter that core obligation of the law, encourage delay and break down the system. It would ensure that failing to comply with a deportation order would be rewarded by an automatic grant of permission to remain. Such a system would completely undermine Ireland's ability to enforce deportation orders, which would be a further pull factor and incentive for unfounded applications to be made. The State is currently in the courts defending a decision to deport a senior ISIS member who has been identified as the foremost recruiter and facilitator of travel to contact zones for ISIS in this State. He would have benefitted automatically had the Senators’ Bill become law in 2014.