Michael D Higgins (Galway West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 168: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on recent reports that it is a burden to have to implement the UNHCR's procedures for dealing with immigrants arriving on Irish shores; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18480/05]

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I presume the Deputy is referring to the State's obligations under the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees and to recent exchanges at the Select Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights in the context of consideration by that committee of my Department's Estimates for 2005.

The Deputy's question refers selectively to comments made during those proceedings in which I outlined the comprehensive nature of the resources being allocated annually across Departments and agencies to support the asylum process which in 2004 amounted to some €375 million. Some €125 million of this expenditure was made by my Department in supporting asylum and immigration related services such as the processing of asylum applications, provision of legal advice and representation by the Refugee Legal Service, provision of accommodation to asylum seekers on a countrywide basis and the operation of the immigration system, including the deportation process.

At the committee, I also referred to the major improvements which have been made both with regard to the reduction in timescales for processing asylum applications and the reduction in the number of such applications on hands in the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, ORAC, and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, RAT. This is illustrated, for example, by the major improvements made in reducing processing timescales with asylum applications from prioritised countries — Nigeria, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and South Africa — and having current average processing times of 14 working days at first instance and ten working days at appeals stage. Applications from the countries in question cover some 46% of total applications for refugee status. Other improvements include the elimination of the backlog of asylum applications with fewer than 3,000 cases awaiting a decision now as compared to some 5,414 cases at the end of May 2004 and some 10,000 cases in 2000; and the fact that there are only some 700 cases awaiting an asylum decision over six months old as compared to some 6,500 such cases in September 2001.

The allocation of such a comprehensive level of resources by the State, along with the very great improvements which have been achieved in the reduction in processing times and the number of applications on hands, point very clearly to both our commitment to continuing to meet our obligations under the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees and the success of our asylum strategy.

As I pointed out in a statement, which I issued on 7 June 2005 setting out the real facts about the asylum and deportation systems, our approach to the issue of protection is based on achieving a balance between fairness and firmness — fairness in ensuring that those genuinely in need of protection receive that protection quickly and firmness in dealing with abuses in our system which tie up large amounts of public funds which could be better utilised elsewhere. The State's asylum strategy is based on a number of key principles: meeting our obligations under international law such as the 1951 Geneva Convention and, of course, under national law relating asylum; dealing fairly but efficiently with the large number of unfounded asylum claims which are being received which represent over 90% of the total number of asylum applications being processed annually; ensuring that persons who are found, after a fair and efficient determination process, not to need protection are returned to their countries of origin as quickly as this can be arranged; and ensuring that we have robust systems in place to root out and prevent abuse in our protection system by persons who are entering the State for purposes other than seeking protection from persecution.

However, as I pointed out to the select committee, I will not shirk from my responsibilities to protect our refugee protection system from abuse. The level of such abuse is well illustrated not only by the nature of some of the grounds being put forward for protection but also by the level of non-co-operation which exists with the asylum and immigration authorities. Despite the comprehensive nature and fairness of our independent asylum process, involving a determination at first instance and appeal by two independent agencies and access to comprehensive legal advice and interpretation services, some 90% of applicants for asylum are found not to be in need of refugee status.

A recent analysis by my Department of the accelerated processing arrangements for prioritised asylum applications introduced on 25 January 2005, which involves a full merits consideration by ORAC at first instance and access to an appeal to the RAT, indicated that of the 365 decisions issued by ORAC up to the week ending 27 May 2005, some 359 were refusals and of 136 decisions issued by RAT, some 134 upheld the determination of the ORAC.

Our recognition rates at first instance compares favourably to other European countries as follows: Denmark, 4.9%; Ireland, 6.2%; Spain,2.6%; Norway, 3.6%; Germany, 3.3% and the United Kingdom, 3%. It must also be recognised that many of those claiming refugee status in the State do not comply with their statutory obligations to co-operate with the immigration and asylum authorities.

The analysis of the accelerated process introduced in January last also shows that some 33% of applicants are not complying with their daily reporting requirements to the Reception and Integration Agency. Similarly, some 46% of those who have failed the asylum process and who are seeking leave to remain in the State have not complied with their daily signing requirement with the Garda National Immigration Bureau. Many applicants are also not in possession of travel and identity documentation even though a travel document is essential in order to be allowed access to an aircraft to travel to the State by air. For the period May 2004 to May 2005, some 88% of the 1,174 Nigerian nationals without documents stated to ORAC that they travelled by air at some stage in their journey. Large numbers of other nationals are also arriving without travel documents but indicate to ORAC that they travelled by air, as follows: Romania, 40%; Democratic Republic of the Congo, 100%; Ukraine, 42% and Moldova, 33%. Recognising that there will always be some people with genuine protection needs who have to flee their countries of origin without their identity documents, the fact remains that with no direct flights between the countries I mentioned and Ireland, the inescapable conclusion is that destruction and concealment of travel documents is a central feature of a well developed trafficking strategy.

The State will continue to meet its obligations under the 1951 Geneva Convention to those genuinely needing protection. However, I also intend to continue to intensify the drive against unfounded asylum applications. The processing of applications will continue to be speeded up consistent with fairness and due process and every effort will continue to be made to ensure that applicants comply with their duty to co-operate and report. Persons found to have no protection needs will be returned to their countries of origin as quickly as this can be arranged. The need for a comprehensive repatriation strategy in the circumstances I have outlined, is recognised by all States with developed asylum systems and by the UNHCR.