Vol. 483 No. 6
23 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the measures, if any, he has taken to end the inexcusable prolonged delays that asylum seekers face in having their applications for asylum processed. [21484/97]
On my appointment as Minister I commenced a review of arrangements for processing applications for refugee status.
Within a few weeks I was satisfied that resources in terms of staff numbers and basic facilities were inadequate to deal with the number of applications being lodged. I therefore sought and obtained Government approval for additional staff to be appointed to my Department and for new premises to be obtained.
In addition, a dispute about payment of legal fees which had prevented appeals against refusal of refugee status from being dealt with for nearly three years was resolved in June. I arranged for appeal hearings to recommence on 12 August. Resolution of this dispute means that it is now possible to bring to finality the processing of appeals against a finding that an individual has no entitlement to refugee status.
Recruitment of the additional staff is in hands. In this regard, various staff unions have expressed concerns relating to the proposed recruitment of the additional staff. Discussions in this regard have been taking place between the Department of Finance and the staff side — the last meeting was held on Wednesday 26 November — and I am hopeful that the matter will be resolved shortly. It is my intention to commence appointing the new staff as soon as possible after this matter has been resolved.
There are currently 22 members of staff dedicated to dealing with asylum claimants in my Department. This includes a small number of the above mentioned additional staff. When all the additional staff are appointed there will be almost 90 persons dealing with asylum claims. It is expected that the additional staffing resource will have two effects. First, it will enable the very significant backlog to be tackled. Second, it will ensure that cases are dealt with in a more timely fashion and that the current processing time of approximately two years per case will be significantly reduced. I would expect that applications lodged in the New Year will be processed to finality in a period of about six months.
The Office of Public Works has completed legal formalities for the acquisition of new accommodation. Work on fitting out of the new accommodation, estimated to cost £2.5 million, has started and the accommodation should be ready for use in the early part of 1998. Until then the work of processing applications will continue in temporary accommodation.
In so far as the implementation of the Refugee Act, 1996 is concerned, I have already made an Order commencing sections 1, 2, 5, 22 and 25 of the Act with effect from 29 August last.
There is at present a High Court injunction preventing the appointment of a Refugee Applications Commissioner under the Act. Because of this litigation I am not in a position to appoint a Refugee Applications Commissioner, an appointment central to the introduction of the remaining sections of the Act.
In light of the impasse over the appointment of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, my desire to deal with all applications for refugee status fairly, efficiently and in a timely manner, and the need to put in place an interim arrangement to deal with the current large caseload, I have met the representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Discussions between the representative and my officials are continuing with a view to establishing a procedure to deal with the backlog of cases which has built up over the past two years or so and currently stands at about 4,000.
Both the UNHCR and I are satisfied that the arrangement made in 1985, involving formal consultation with the UNHCR in each individual case, is no longer workable due to the huge increase in numbers applying, and that a new approach is necessary. I hope that new procedures will be put in place very shortly. The procedures which are under discussion follow, in as far as practicable, the philosophy set out in the Refugee Act, 1996.
I again want to place on the record my appreciation of the advice and assistance being given by the UNHCR in this matter and, especially, as part of that assistance, the acceptance by the UNHCR of my offer of funding for the placement by the UNHCR of one of its staff in Dublin for the next 12 months or so to assist my Department in dealing with the matter.
I am satisfied that these measures, taken together, will bring about an improvement in the position — not just in fairness to those who have applied for refugee status who are entitled to a speedy decision but also to the taxpayer who must support applicants and their families while a decision is pending.
Does the Minister agree that the present delay in processing these applications is very undesirable and is giving rise to tension which ultimately results in a very unhealthy type of politics? When does he expect the backlog to be cleared? What waiting period would he consider acceptable in processing these applications? Does he consider six months an acceptable period for applicants to wait for a decision?
I fully accept the Deputy's point that it is undesirable applicants should have to wait so long for a decision and that is why I made valiant efforts to put in place the arrangements I already outlined. Following the provision of the necessary staff and accommodation it will take approximately six months to deal with an application. Given the logistics, this is a reasonable period.
It must be remembered there has been a very large increase in the number of applications in recent years. This has caused a problem for the Department and has required the recruitment of 72 additional staff. I hope the staff and accommodation will be ready early in the new year. This will be of great relief to people who genuinely wish to seek asylum here. In general terms, the matter should work out well. I am mindful and appreciative of the crucially important role played by the UNHCR. It has fulfilled this role for a considerable period. The new arrangements will work satisfactorily and will be to the benefit of all concerned.
What action does the Minister propose to take as a result of the decision handed down by the courts today? What extra safeguards does he propose to introduce to allay the concern that some asylum seekers may be deported to countries where they will be persecuted? What is the status of the case regarding the appointment of the refugee commissioner which is before the courts and will the Government seek an early hearing of this case?
On the recent Supreme Court decision, it is a generally recognised international principle that people seeking asylum should do so at the first available opportunity. This principle has been applied by successive Ministers, irrespective of the Government in office. It was given effect by the Dublin Convention which guarantees asylum seekers who arrive in the territory or at the borders of a member state of the EU that their applications will be examined fully by one country in accordance with its asylum determination process.
The Supreme Court decision concluded that the Minister "carried out a proper inquiry as to whether the United Kingdom was the first safe country for the purpose of a substantive inquiry into the applicant's claim for refugee status and that such inquiry was held in accordance with the provisions of the Von-Arnim Letter in so far as they are material to such an inquiry and the requirements for natural and constitutional justice". The Von-Arnim Letter referred to is the 1985 arrangement with the UNHCR under which applications for refugee status are currently examined by the State.
A number of cases — five in the courts and 23 administratively — have been on hold pending the outcome of this case. It is intended to instruct the 23 to leave shortly. Other cases may come to light during the investigation of claims and they will also be affected by the judgment. In so far as the Supreme Court judgment has application to individual cases then naturally it is the function of the Government and the authorities to apply the decision to those cases, and obviously that will be the position.
