asked the Minister for Justice if his attention has been drawn to an article (details supplied) to the effect that a German postgraduate student living in Dublin had been told by his Department that because she had a bank overdraft she was not to be permitted to stay in this country; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - German Post-Graduate Student.
9.
As Deputy Manning will be aware the case referred to in his question has received considerable publicity apart from the article referred to by him. There was also a number of letters relating to the case in the newspaper in question including two from my private office. In one of these I found it necessary to refute the statements which formed the basis of the article in question as being seriously distorted and unjust to the people in the Aliens Section of my Department.
Contrary to what was stated in the newspaper article the student was not told by my Department that because she had a bank overdraft she was not to be permitted to stay here. In fact, no final decision was taken as to whether she would be allowed remain in the country or not. However, it was explained to her that students had to be able to maintain themselves financially. In this context she was informed that a bank statement showing an overdraft would not be accepted as proof of her having sufficient financial support to maintain herself.
As to the relevant background, I should point out that the requirement that students be able to demonstrate that they are in a position to support themselves financially applies to students of EC countries. Our procedure on this matter is in accordance with the EC Directives on rights of entry and residence of certain categories of persons who are nationals of EC countries and is in keeping with practices in other EC countries in relation to students who are citizens of member states of the EC.
In the article in question, the student attributes certain statements to officers of the Aliens Section which, if true, would reflect badly on them. They deny emphatically that they made the statements complained of and I am satisfied that they did not do so.
The article is seriously misleading in giving the impression that the student — as a young inexperienced non-national — was put in terror by the bureaucratic "hassle" of experienced and antagonistic officials — that was marvellous language in the article. As was clarified in one of the letters from my office the truth is quite different. The student in question is 31 years old. She has had considerable experience of immigration procedures. She was accompanied by a male companion — an Irish national who appeared to be in his mid-forties — whose behaviour could only be called belligerent — if not violent. He physically threatened the officer of my Department — a young girl — who had to deal with himself and the student and left the interview in a rage shouting, "I'll get you".
In fact, he said to the young woman on the reception desk that he almost hit the official with whom he had been dealing. In this context I would like to point out that on all occasions each of the officials dealing with the student was younger than she and considerably younger than the man who accompanied her. Indeed, the man's behaviour was such as to leave one of these young officers in a state of distress.
My Department wrote to the student on 2 April 1986 stating that no decision had been taken in her case and pointing out that if she is here as a student she would have to produce documentary evidence of her ability to maintain herself. No reply has been received to that letter to date.
I was somewhat disturbed at the part of the question that was not allowed which dealt with an overdraft being used against a person staying in the country but, leaving that aside, I accept that the facts are as the Minister outlined because I carried out my own investigation into this matter. What worries me is that very specific, detailed and disturbing allegations were made in print but it was weeks before they were answered fully by the Department thus allowing the impression to continue that there was something seriously wrong with the administration by officials in the Department. Will the Minister accept that a speedier method of response by the Department to allegations of this sort in the future could prevent a story growing in the way this one did?
I should like to make one small point lest it is overlooked. The existence of an overdraft is not in any case used against a person. We could not accept the evidence that an overdraft existed as evidence that the person was able financially to maintain herself. I am prepared to agree that, perhaps, a speedier, detailed reply from my Department might have helped to avoid other people getting a wrong slant. As against that I have to say, and this underlines my response to the question before us, that in the normal course of events my Department and I would be very reluctant to enter into public debate about any specific case. I do not think it is proper that specific cases like this should be debated in public and I regret the fact that the person in question saw fit to present what was, in the event, a very biased and partial account of her adventures to the newspapers.