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

Question 409: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on the views expressed by a senior official in his Department during submissions to the Dáil Public Accounts Committee on 22 June 2006, that the majority of asylum seekers are economic migrants and that in pursuance of their claims such persons invariably lie through their teeth and that the judicial process at his Department is ambushed right up to the point of deportation; if such statements express a Departmental assessment which guides his policy and decision making on asylum; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27217/06]

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

The Deputy is referring to the recent appearance by the Secretary General of my Department accompanied by the Director General of the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service and other officials before the Public Accounts Committee which was reviewing the Appropriation Accounts for 2004 and the C&AG's report thereon including a review of the cost of deportations of failed asylum seekers and other persons found to be in breach of immigration law.

In the course of those proceedings the Secretary General and the Director General outlined the absolute seriousness with which the State takes its obligations under the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees and the comprehensive nature of the resources being allocated annually across Departments and agencies to support the asylum and immigration process. They also, of course, referred to the serious concerns we have with the level of deliberate abuse of our current processes which we are seeking to comprehensively address on an ongoing basis.

In 2004 some €376 million approx. was allocated across Departments to asylum and immigration issues and some €308 million approx. in 2005. Over the past four years some €1.3 billion approx. has been spent in this area which represents a considerable portion of public funds.

Some €137 million was spent by my Department alone in 2005 on 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 by the Reception and Integration Agency on a countrywide basis and the operation of the immigration system including the deportation process.

At the Committee, the Secretary General also referred to the major improvements which have been made both in relation 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 and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

Over recent years, very considerable work has been undertaken in ORAC and the RAT, to deal with applications for asylum and to speed up processing times. The work involved has resulted in a situation where:

—Processing has continued to move strongly in both ORAC and RAT. At the end of May 2006 there were 2,723 cases on hands in both agencies compared to some 5,542 cases on hands at the end of April 2004.

—The number of applications over six months in ORAC and RAT at the end of May 2006 stood at 581 as compared to some 6,500 at the end of September 2001. The backlog of applications has been effectively eliminated in ORAC with only 61 cases on hands over six months at the end of May 2006 and some 520 in RAT a large number of which are at an advanced stage of processing.

—There is continued momentum in processing timescales for asylum applications with arrangements for the speedier processing of prioritised applications (from nationals of Nigeria, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and South Africa) introduced in January 2005, with an 18 working day processing time at first instance in ORAC and 15 working days at appeals stage in RAT. Currently, approximately 40% of total applications fall into the prioritised category.

—With effect from 1 November 2005, all applicants for asylum are notified of their interview date by ORAC at the time they make their applications. The interview appointment is normally within 20 working days of application. However, for those applicants within the prioritised category, interviews in ORAC are held, more speedily, within 9 to 12 days.

—The typical processing time in the ORAC for non-prioritised cases is in the region of 8-9 weeks. The average length of time taken to process and complete substantive appeals in the RAT is approximately 14 weeks.

My officials also referred to the number of judicial review applications on hands in relation to the asylum and repatriation process. I can inform the Deputy that at 31 May 2006, there were over 1,000 such cases live in ORAC, RAT and the judicial review area of the repatriation process. Nearly 500 of these judicial reviews are live at the latter end of the process namely at deportation stage. We are seeking to address the judicial review backlog on an ongoing basis in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor.

The allocation of such a comprehensive level of resources by the State, along with the very great improvements outlined above 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.

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 some 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;

—implementing the provisions of the Dublin II Regulation to ensure that asylum applicants who lodged asylum claims in more than one jurisdiction, are returned to the State where they first claimed asylum; 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.

I am strongly of the view that the State has a comprehensive asylum system in place which is both fair and transparent and compares well with other EU States. Indeed this fact was recently acknowledged by a former UNHCR Representative to Ireland who is quoted as stating that Ireland is now a model for the new Member States of the European Union and that "we now have a system which, in many respects, is one of the best in Europe". More recently, the UNHCR Assistant High Commissioner for Protection on a visit to Ireland expressed her appreciation for the asylum system which the State operates and is also quoted as saying that in the view of the UNHCR it is "a system which we believe functions very well".

The Refugee Act 1996 established two independent statutory offices to consider applications and appeals in respect of refugee status and to make recommendations to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on whether such status should be granted. These offices are the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (ORAC) and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal (RAT).

Both agencies are highly resourced and staff members receive specialised, UNHCR-based training before processing cases. Due regard is also had to particularly vulnerable applicants, such as minors or victims of trauma, and appropriate training is given towards the sensitive processing of such claims.

When an applicant claims asylum, that applicant is provided with all the necessary information governing the asylum process, including a detailed information leaflet which is available in nearly 30 languages.

Every asylum applicant, with the exception of those to whom the Dublin II Regulation apply, is guaranteed an investigation and determination of his or her claim at first instance by the Refugee Applications Commissioner. Each application is assessed on the basis of the circumstances of the individual case and having regard to both the subjective elements (the applicant's own account or personal history) and objective elements (up-to-date information on the applicant's country or place of origin). This country of origin information comes from a wide variety of objective and respected sources, including organisations such as the UNHCR, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, UK Home Office, US State Department and other EU member states as well as media and internet sources.

In the event of a negative recommendation at first instance, our system also guarantees every asylum applicant a right of appeal to the independent Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Every appellant is furnished with a copy (in the language of their own country where possible) of the Tribunal's information leaflet, which sets out the appeals process in full. Also important to note in terms of fairness is that access to legal assistance at all stages of the process is provided by the Refugee Legal Service and, under the provisions of the Refugee Act 1996, UNHCR is given full access to our refugee determination process.

Finally, those applicants who are found to have no protection needs have the opportunity to make representations to the Minister under the Immigration Act, 1999 on a large number of grounds as to why they should not be deported as well as having any possible refoulement issues addressed.

In addition to this comprehensive determination process, applicants have the opportunity to access the courts by seeking judicial review on procedural aspects of the decision-making.

However, as the Secretary General pointed out at the Public Accounts Committee and as I have myself indicated on many occasions in the past, the Government will not shirk its 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 from some applicants 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. Many of these applicants could, as was pointed out by the Secretary General, be classed as economic migrants who are choosing to use the asylum process to gain a foothold in the State for reasons other than protection needs, rather than utilising the comprehensive framework we have in place to legitimately gain entry for economic and work purposes.

An 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 968 recommendations issued by ORAC up to week ending 9 June 2006, some 956 were refusals and of 302 decisions issued by RAT, some 291 upheld the determination of the ORAC. Ireland's experience in this regard is not out of line with its European neighbours.

An analysis of the accelerated process introduced in January 2005 also shows that a considerable number of applicants are not complying with their requirement to report to immigration authorities, particularly at pre-repatriation stage.

The Deputy should be aware also that a very significant number of persons who claim asylum in this State have their cases considered under the provisions of the Dublin II Regulation, (Council Regulation (E.C.) No. 343 of 2003). The purpose of this Regulation is to provide a means by which persons who lodged asylum claims in more than one EU State, can be transferred to the State where they first claimed asylum. The Deputy might wish to note that of the 1,720 persons who had claimed asylum in this State this year — up to and including 18 May 2006 — 322, or almost 19%, of those involved applications by persons who had previously claimed asylum in another State, as evidenced by their fingerprint match on the EU-wide EURODAC system. This is another example of the clear abuse of our asylum system and the international phenomenon known as "asylum shopping".

Another example of such abuse and lack of truthfulness is the fact that many applicants are also not in possession of travel and identity documentation when they arrive in the State even though a travel document must be produced in order to be allowed access to an aircraft to travel to this State by air.

During 2005 some 80% of total asylum applicants arrived with no documentation, many claiming to have travelled by air at some stage during their journey to the State. These included some 80% of Nigerian and Romanian applicants. Nearly 90% of applicants from Somalia, Sudan and Iran had no travel documentation. In 2006 to end June, nearly 80% of total applicants have also arrived without any travel documents including some 80% of Nigerians and 77% of Romanians.

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 have mentioned and Ireland, the inescapable conclusion is that destruction and concealment of travel documents is a central feature of a well developed trafficking strategy.

On the repatriation side, as the Secretary General and the Director General of INIS pointed out, there is massive evasion of deportation orders. Of some 13,765 orders signed up to 30 June 2006, some 7,230 are being evaded. This is another example of how our processes are the subject of wholesale abuse.

I have gone into some detail in this reply in order to provide the Deputy with a realistic overview of the challenges being faced by our asylum and repatriation processes. The comments by my officials frankly and honestly reflected that reality. The information which I have outlined in this reply illustrates that the large majority of applicants are, for whatever reason, simply not credible in what they are telling officials involved in our process.

In conclusion, 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 and untruthful asylum applications. Not to do so would inevitably bring the Asylum Process into public disrepute and therefore injure the interests of genuine Asylum Seekers and Refugees.

The processing of applications will continue to be speeded up consistent with fairness and due process. Every effort will continue to be made to ensure that applicants comply with their statutory duty to co-operate and report.

Finally, persons found to have no protection needs will be returned to their countries of origin as quickly as this can be arranged including by the continued use of charter flights.

As my officials also pointed out to the Public Accounts Committee, the importance of a comprehensive repatriation strategy for the return of persons found to have no protection needs is absolutely fundamental to the efficient and effective operation of any asylum determination process. This is a fact fully recognised by all States with developed asylum systems and by the UNHCR.