IRISH NATURALISATION AND IMMIGRATION SERVICE (INIS)

SEIRBHlS EADOIRSEACHTA AGUS INIMIRCE Na HE1REANN

Department of Public Expenditure and Reform

Upper Merrion Street
Dublin 2.

M<

Att: Mr. William Beausang " .

^

^'

As

AKr ^
c
.
FOI - matters for consideration if extended to ORAC7& RAT
r
vJc
t
r

*
\
a .a
J
Dear William.
f
s*
u\ >

ULv ^>rU

I refer to our meeting on Friday last in relation to the above when I indicated I would set-out
in further detail the issues regarding the extension of the Act as now proposed.

;T

'

'

v V

-*
-v
*;
,s, . v *

v- -

,v * * '

;
*

"T

'

'

: **
^

...

.
'
.

'

Department of J ustice, Equality and L aw Reform, 13 - 14 B urgh Quay, Dublin 2 / 13 -14 C Burgh, B aile A tha C uath 2
Telephone/T eileafQn (01) 616 7700 Lo-call: 1890 551500 E-Mail /R iomhphost: info@justice.ie

>vV\

r^

Vi

V ^ "

-1

*'

ft - *

;-4^- ;

'

"

__________

*&''' '

\ in u ~ z z
:;t'^^^^S r ~ w
a

r.

' V ;' '"

. ' c .*,* ^

^rgtmtott ^ S f c m.

As provided for in the UK law it is considered that a specific provision should be made fo
this in our law. The nature of the work of the ORAC and RAT is that information held
could potentially be used for purposes such as circumventing the immigration process and
thus undermine the integrity of the States immigration process. In order to maintain this
integrity it is considered that specific legal provision be made for this.

J.

Retrospective nature of the Act.

J his is regarded as having potential to disrupt processing times both in the ORAC and
RAT. Retrospection to 1998 or the commencement date of the organisations concerned
(November 2000) creates a situation where large numbers of requests could be made for
policy and guideline type documents going back in time. Such documents were created at
a time when the organisations in question were outside of the scope of the Act. One
would have to query the balance between the public interest right against the effort
involved in retrieval of effectively what are now historic records. The UK experience is
that documents once released are distributed widely via the internet and could in our
view, be used to undermine the integrity of the asylum process by persons seeking to
construct asylum claims in such a manner as to get around procedural frameworks set out
in the guidelines/ guidance notes etc.

Perhaps of even greater concern if retrospectivity is applied is the potential for requests
for information relating to decisions on whole ranges or categories of cases taken over a
period of years. It should be noted that there have been over 70,000 asylum applications
in the period involved. While the personal information on these could be redacted, their
content could be used to circumvent immigration / asylum policy e.g. to formulate an
application that might have a better chance of being granted based on the information
obtained rather than on the true facts of the individuals application. I should also mention
that the redaction process involved in an exercise such as this, which would be required in
order to guarantee the confidentiality of asylum applications under section 19 of the
Refugee Act 1996, would be a substantial logistical exercise and, depending on the nature
of the FOI request, could have serious repercussions for the functioning of the overall
process.
Perhaps the provision suggested at 2. above could be drafted to encompass such an
exclusion. It is understood that the UKB A refuse to release requests for previous
decisions on cases even if redacted.

i
I
t
II

i
j

PO INIS Shared Services

J^ March, 2012