I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, subsection (2) (a) (v), line 39, before "and" to insert "including the right to challenge a refusal of the Minister pursuant to section 4 (2) or section 24 (3) to issue a travel document, or a decision of the Minister pursuant to section 18 (3), (4) and (5), or the revocation of a declaration pursuant to section 21,".
This amendment proposes to remove a possible ambiguity or oversight. Subsection 2 (a) (v) gives a refugee, in relation to whom a declaration is in force, access to the courts in like manner and to the like extent in all respects as an Irish citizen. However, an Irish citizen would never be in a position of applying for or being refused a travel document within the meaning of section 4 or section 24 and so would not require access to the courts in this context. The same applies to a refugee whose family is refused permission to enter pursuant to section 18 (3), (4) and (5).
The purpose of the amendment is to clarify a possible ambiguity. The section seeks to extend rights of access to the courts similar to those of an Irish citizen but since an Irish citizen would never be in the position of applying for or being refused a travel document, it seems necessary specifically to extend the section. It is a confusing section which needs to be clarified, which is the purpose of the amendment. I am not being pernickety, this is a valid point about ambiguity in the section and I ask the Minister to comment.
