I move amendment No. 13b
In page 7, subsection 1 (b), line 9, to delete "where practicable".
The amendments in my name seek to delete the phrase "where practicable" where it occurs in section 9 (1) (b), section 9 (2) and section 9 (3). This phrase allows officialdom — in this case an immigration officer — not to proceed as required by the legislation and not to conduct the interviews in a way the legislators would wish. At any given time, for whatever reason, a person could be sick or delayed, and the phrase "where practicable" is far too broad. We should delete it.
Section 9 (1) (b) states:
The immigration officer concerned shall inform the person referred to in paragraph (a), where practicable, in a language the person understands——
The phrase should not be used there. If the person is not able to understand, or speaks an obscure language and a translator is not available, that is all the more reason some form of communication, perhaps even sign language, should be used so the person does know the position. Why should the words "where practicable" be used there?
Immigration officers at the major ports and airports are usually gardaí, as the Minister informed me at the last meeting. We could not expect them to know a range of languages. It is unreasonable and a member of the Garda Síochána is not required to know foreign languages. There should be an obligation — not merely where practicable, but in all circumstances — to communicate the information to a person who does not speak the same language as the immigration officer in a way the person can understand. The operation should be delayed until it is possible and practicable to do so.
Similarly, subsection (2) states:
An interview under subsection (1) shall, where necessary and practicable, be conducted with the assistance of an interpreter——
There are two qualifications there — this shall only be done where it is necessary and practicable. Surely an interpreter should be provided where necessary and the further qualification should not arise. There should be no discussion when an interpreter cannot be provided and the person should be treated properly and looked after until such time as it is possible to have interpreter assistance available.
Subsection (3) states:
Where a person is being interviewed pursuant to subsection (1), the immigration officer concerned shall inform the person or cause him or her to be informed, without delay and, where practicable in a language that he or she understands that——
(a) he or she is entitled to consult a solicitor, and
(b) he or she is entitled to consult the Commissioner.
The phrase "where practicable" should not apply here. A person should be told in a language he can understand that he is entitled to consult a solicitor and to consult the Commissioner. This is fundamental.
My amendment No. 16 proposed to insert a new subsection (7) to section 9 but I understand it has been ruled out of order.