I propose to take Questions Nos. 108 to 110, inclusive, together.
On the issue of translations, I refer the Deputy to my responses to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 60 to 62 of 29 March, 2017. The position in relation to the provision of translation services is unchanged: the current service provider is contractually obliged to provide such services in a professional manner and in accordance with industry standards. Free online translation services are not used by the International Protection office (IPO).
The Chief International Protection Officer (CIPO) who, under the International Protection Act 2015, is independent in the performance of his functions, has further informed me that the quality of all translations provided is kept under constant review, both by the contractor and by the IPO. Any issues raised regarding the quality of translations are immediately addressed as part of this ongoing quality review. As part of this process, the CIPO has advised me that the IPO is engaged with the service provider at present about a number of quality issues in respect of the Application for International Protection Questionnaire. The IPO will be in contact with any applicants who may be impacted, if required, when the quality review has been completed.
On the issue of the return of questionnaires, may I refer the Deputy to my responses to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 86, 88, 89 and 102 of 23 February, 2017. The Application for International Protection Questionnaire (IPO 2) is designed to be used by the IPO on an ongoing basis and not just as part of the transition arrangements, therefore the questionnaire does not, and cannot indicate any time-frame for its return. The indicated time-frame for return is detailed with the accompanying documentation.
As I have stated previously, I can inform the Deputy that the information sent to transition applicants in January- February 2017 made clear in Paragraph 7.3 that the IPO 2 Questionnaire should be returned 'if possible, no later than 20 working days from the date of the covering letter'. The next paragraph 7.4 went on to state clearly that opportunities to add to the information supplied exist up to two weeks, 'if you are in a position to do so,' before the scheduled interview in order to 'facilitate the translation of documents if required and ensure that the IPO interviewer has all your papers available and considered in advance of the interview date'. The word deadline or statutory deadline does not appear and no negative consequences for failing to meet an 'if possible' time-frame were included or implied. The twenty working day time-frame reflects the willingness of the IPO to begin work on the new single procedure as soon as possible in respect of legacy applications, particularly those in prioritised categories, and a satisfactory number of applicants were in a position to respond promptly, allowing the single application process to commence.
I am happy to restate that this is purely an administrative time-frame and NGOs and service providers have been informed of that throughout the planning process. Flexibility is being provided by the IPO in recognition of the complexity of the process for applicants affected by the transition provisions and the demands placed on their legal advisors by the transitional arrangements - the wisdom of accessing legal advice is stressed in the Questionnaire. A call centre is available to answer any queries and extra time is available if required for the completion of the IPO 2 Questionnaire. It can be seen therefore that no impediment or disadvantage exists to prevent the careful filling out of the new single application form. I understand, so as to remove any false impressions that may be circulating abroad that the 'if possible' time frame is some sort of statutory deadline, that the IPO has written to the members of the Customer Liaison Panel to confirm the arrangements and that similar clarification has been provided on the IPO website.
The CIPO informs me that adherence to time-frames helps to ensure that the work of the Office continues and that applicants get timely decisions, particularly those in prioritised categories. For those applications which have been made since the commencement of the 2015 Act i.e. on or after 31 December 2016, and are not affected by the complex transition provisions, the IPO is asking those applicants to adhere to the time-frames indicated in their accompanying documentation. However, flexibility continues to be afforded to this group of applicants, if, for example, they are waiting on legal advice.
Applicants have a duty to cooperate as set out in Section 27 of the International Protection Act 2015 (the 2015 Act) and there are consequences for failing to cooperate set out in Section 38, therefore it is entirely appropriate and necessary to include an alert in the Questionnaire. It should also be noted that Section 38 of the 2015 Act, which deals with the consequences of non-cooperation, sets out specifically the procedure to be followed in these cases and gives applicants ample opportunities to address any potential non-cooperation issues.
In relation to the availability of the Questionnaire, under the 2015 Act, applicants are required to apply in person for international protection either at the frontier of within the State. At their time of application and in line with the requirements of the 2015 Act, applicants are fingerprinted, photographed, issued a reference number and a temporary Residence Certificate. Normally at that time, the IPO provides the IPO 2 Questionnaire and an accompanying information pack. In order to maintain the integrity of the Questionnaire and the application process generally, it has never been the practice to make the questionnaire available publicly or online. Such publication would leave the process open to abuse by non-applicants and those who are not at the frontier or within the State as required by law. Additional copies of the Questionnaire are, however, provided to applicants and their legal representatives on request, once their application reference numbers have been assigned.
