Written Answers. - Asylum Applications.
Seán Haughey
Ceist:
453
Mr. Haughey
asked the
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
his plans to prevent the obvious and continuing abuse of the asylum laws in that the vast majority of applications prove to be unfounded; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[26223/03]
Building on the commitments in An Agreed Programme for Government, the Governments approach to the issue of asylum is based on the achievement of a number of key objectives, namely: ensuring that the State continues to meet its obligations under the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its related 1967 Protocol and with this in mind, that persons genuinely in need of refugee protection receive that protection as quickly as possible; dealing with the high number of unfounded asylum applications received as speedily as possible – in the region of 90% of asylum applications are rejected after consideration by two independent determination bodies; increasing the number of voluntary returns of failed asylum applicants on the basis, for example, of programmes operated in co-operation with the International Organisation For Migration, IOM; ensuring that persons who do not qualify for refugee status and who are not eligible to remain in the State on some other grounds, and who do not avail of a voluntary return option, are returned to their country of origin as quickly as possible. As the UNHCR points out, returns of failed asylum seekers in such circumstances to their countries of origin is important in order to protect the integrity of the institution of asylum and, of course, to counter misuse of the asylum process.
To achieve these objectives a multi-pillared approach continues to be taken including speeding up processing times for asylum applications and increasing the number of cases being processed on the basis of the allocation of substantial additional resources to the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, ORAC, and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, RAT. The result of the strengthening of these bodies has been, inter alia, that processing continues to move strongly, with the number of cases over six months old in the ORAC and RAT at the end of October 2003 in the region of 2600, the vast majority of which are at an advanced stage of processing.
I have also introduced substantial amendments to the Refugee Act 1996 in the Immigration Act 2003 which came into effect on 15 September 2003 to streamline the asylum process. Included among these amendments is provision for prioritisation of certain categories of asylum application, for example, by country of origin of applicants, date of application, grounds of application, the likelihood that applications are well founded or whether applications do not show on their face grounds for the contention that the applicant is a refugee, and based on ministerial directions to the ORAC and RAT for this purpose; designation of states as safe countries of origin as a result of which nationals from states so designated are presumed not to be refugees but may rebut that presumption at interview. I have by regulation made on 15 September 2003 designated 12 states as safe countries of origin namely, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Designation of states as safe third countries for the purpose of determining the state responsible for processing an asylum application with appeals in such cases having non-suspensive effect. In Dublin Convention cases, now replaced by an EU Regulation, appeals also now have non-suspensive effect.
Applicants are required to play a more active role in the asylum process and now have a statutory duty to co-operate in the investigation of their applications and in the determination of appeals. Applicants who do not actively pursue their applications by, for example, failing to attend for interview or to furnish information relevant to their applications or, where required to do so, fail to report to an immigration officer or to reside or remain at particular accommodation, will, unless they can indicate within a specified time limit a wish to continue with their applications, have those applications rejected.
Credibility issues have been given a statutory foundation with the asylum agencies, in assessing the credibility of an applicant for the purpose of the investigation of an application or the determination of an appeal, being required to have regard to a large number of issues such as whether the applicant possesses identity documents, and if not whether he or she has provided a reasonable explanation for the absence of such documents; whether the applicant has provided a full and true explanation of how he or she travelled to and arrived in the State; where the application was made other than at the frontiers of the State, whether the applicant has provided a reasonable explanation to show why he or she did not claim asylum immediately on arriving at the frontiers of the State unless the application is grounded on events which have taken place since his or her arrival in the State; where the applicant has forged, destroyed or disposed of any identity and other documents relevant to his or her application, whether he or she has a reasonable explanation for so doing; whether in the case of an appeal, the applicant has furnished information in relation to the application which he or she could reasonably have furnished during the investigation of the application at first instance but did not do so. These extensive amendments to the Refugee Act 1996 while fully consistent with the States obligations under the 1951 Geneva Convention, provide a more comprehensive framework for the fair and expeditious processing of asylum applications. The amendments in question, which as I have indicated were introduced with effect from 15 September, are based on the experience of operating the Refugee Act 1996 over the last few years and, in particular dealing with the high level of unfounded applications and the high number of "no shows" at interviews, which were tying up large amounts of resources that could be better used to provide support to those genuinely in need of refugee protection.
The resources allocated to the Garda National Immigration Bureau have also been increased for the purpose,inter alia, of enforcing deportation orders. In terms of numbers of asylum applications being made, I can tell the Deputy that the trend in 2003 to date is downwards with a 25% decrease in applications to end October 2003 compared to the same period in 2002. The month of October 2003 saw the lowest monthly number of asylum applications recorded since June 1999. We are also continuing to maintain the number of deportations being effected with 463 persons deported in the year to the end of October 2003 and 635 voluntary returns also taking place during this period compared to 506 persons availing of the voluntary return option for the whole of 2002.
With €340 million being spent on the asylum and related immigration process including on the provision of support services to asylum seekers in 2002, I am sure the Deputy will agree that it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that we have a fair and efficient asylum process in place which can both tackle abusive applications but ensure that those in genuine need of protection receive that protection as quickly as possible.
I recognise that the issue of asylum is complex and presents many challenges for all the agencies involved in the asylum and immigration process. However, I am convinced that the policies being pursued are the right ones as evidenced, in particular, by the results I have highlighted in reply to the Deputys Question today.
