Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 27 Mar 2001

Vol. 533 No. 3

Written Answers. - Asylum Applications.

Brendan Howlin

Ceist:

289 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if his attention has been drawn to the fact that on 1 March 2001 asylum seekers resident at Island House, Morrison Island, Cork, were informed by DASS that they were required to vacate the hotel by 11.30 a.m. on 2 March 2001, that no consultation with or assessment of the residents' needs took place in advance of this decision and that alternative bed and breakfast accommodation in Cork was provided only after intervention by organisations such as NASC and the Irish Immigrant Support Centre Limited; if he has satisfied himself with the manner in which these people have been treated; if he will indicate their current status and whereabouts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9044/01]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

The directorate for asylum support services is responsible, inter alia, for meeting the accommodation needs of asylum seekers. In this connection in April 2000 it entered into a contract for services with the proprietors of Island View House, Morrisson Island, Cork, for the provision of full board accommodation for 110 asylum seekers.

On 1 March, 2001 the directorate was faced with a situation where, due to fire safety considerations and on the basis of legal and technical advice, it considered it to be in the interests of the continuing safety of asylum seekers accommodated there to close the hostel as a matter of urgency.

In these circumstances, the directorate, again in the interests of the continuing safety of the asylum seekers, decided that the use of the hostel should cease at the earliest possible moment, that is, the following day, 2 March. The asylum seekers were advised of this by letter on the evening of 1 March and the directorate also arranged for additional precautionary measures to be put in place overnight at the hostel.

Clearly the directorate would have preferred to have been in a position where more notice of the hostel's closure could have been given to the asylum seekers but in acting as it did, it strongly demonstrated that top priority is given to the safety of asylum seekers.

In regard to the question of providing alternative accommodation for the asylum seekers, the situation is that the directorate, at minimum notice, was in a position to do this, in circumstances I might add where there is a severe shortage of accommodation in all sectors throughout the State, at a number of other centres in the Munster and general southern region. Some of the asylum seekers accepted the accommodation offered to them whereas the majority did not. Transport was offered to the asylum seekers to enable them to travel to these alternative locations.

The directorate could have decided that these alternative arrangements fulfilled its obligations to the asylum seekers and that failure on their part to take up these offers of alternative accommodation was a decision by them, in effect, to render themselves homeless. However, the directorate, motivated by the best interests of the asylum seekers in question, decided that it would endeavour to relocate them in other accommodation and guesthouses in the Cork city and suburban area.

Notwithstanding the severe practical difficulties in securing such accommodation at short notice, all of the remaining asylum seekers were accommodated in the area. The asylum seekers in question continue to be accommodated in the Cork city and suburban area.

Brendan Howlin

Ceist:

290 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position in relation to the asylum application of a person (details supplied); if account will be taken in determining her application of this woman's state of health and her need for medical treatment which will not be available if she is forced to return to Nigeria; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9045/01]

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

The person referred to arrived in the State on 16 June, 2000 and sought asylum. Following an interview, her case was deemed to be manifestly unfounded on 27 July, 2000. She was informed in writing that she had fourteen days to appeal this decision. Her subsequent appeal was rejected on 6 October, 2000.

In accordance with section 3 of the Immigration Act, 1999, the person in question was informed on 27 October, 2000 that it was proposed to make a deportation order in respect of her. She was given the alternatives of either making representations within 15 days, leaving the State before the order was made or consenting to the making of the deportation order. Further to that correspondence, her legal representatives submitted various grounds on which the person referred to should be granted leave to remain in the State. Having considered the case file in the light of the relevant statutory provisions, I signed a deportation order in respect of the person referred to on 10 January 2001.

In that context, I was required to take into account a number of factors under section 3(6) of the Immigration Act, 1999, including humanitarian considerations and representations made by or on behalf of the person.

The person referred to has been given leave by the courts to seek a judicial review of her case. In the circumstances, it would be inappropriate for me to take further action in the matter until the judicial review is determined.