Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Oct 1995

Vol. 457 No. 6

Refugee Bill, 1995: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Killeen

The Bill recognises that refugees are particularly vulnerable and like the 1994 Bill it proposes in the interests of justice to set out their rights in statute. I welcome many of the provisions which represent an improvement on the position under the 1994 Bill, for example, the entitlement of an applicant to have his case heard, the clear commitment to the provision of an interpreter and the widening of the definition to include persecution because of gender, sexual orientation or membership of a trade union. These provisions strengthen the Bill and give recognition to the fact that refugees sometimes suffer persecution to the extent that they need to leave a country. I compliment the parliamentary draftsman and the Office of the Attorney General for incorporating in the Bill many of the points made by us during the debate on the 1994 Bill.

Last week I referred to the situation as it affects people from Cuba. All Governments should be more forthcoming in seeking to have the US blockade on that country lifted. Many Cuban people and people who have an interest in that country have told me that the US blockade which is now more than 30 years old and which contributes to the economic difficulties of Cuba is not justified on any political grounds. The Bill gives the impression that economic refugees will not be entitled to have their case heard. If this is the case it will be a very great mistake. While we tend to view most of the refugees from Cuba as economic refugees it has been represented to me by some of them that there are other reasons people wish to leave that country. I would not like to see a situation develop whereby such people would be automatically debarred from making a case for refugee status.

It is extremely important to ensure that the people dealing with refugees have proper training. When refugees arrive on our shores they are frightened and disorientated and they require much help. They tend to be suspicious of officialdom and are afraid for their safety and that they might be returned to the jurisdictions from which they have come. It is important, therefore, to provide proper training for people who deal with refugees and for those whose jobs will be substantially changed under the Bill.

Reference has been made to forged documents. In some cases forged documentation is a prerequisite if a person is to have any chance of escaping from a country. The possession of false documents should not be sufficient reason to prevent people from making an application for refugee status in the first instance.

The position of people living in Ireland is different from that of people who arrive at ports or airports in that they are required to make their application directly to the Minister for Justice. This is a sensible provision and presumably all the provisions of the Bill will apply to them.

Section 9 deals with the position of applicants while they are awaiting the determination of their applications. It states that they have the right to remain here during the processing of their application and that statutory bodies will provide for them during that period. I wish to pay tribute to health board and social welfare officials and others who have been extremely helpful to refugees and looked after their needs in a commendable manner.

I welcome the Bill and am glad that the Government has seen fit to introduce it at this stage. I will deal on Committee Stage with some of the minor concerns.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Is cúis áthais dom go bfhuil an Bille seo os ár gcomhair arís mar nuair a bhí mé ar an dtaobh eile den Teach bhí mé go mór i bhfábhar an Bhille. Ós rud é go bhfuilim ar an dtaobh seo inniu níl aon athrú tagtha ar an dearcadh atá agam faoin mBille. Is dócha go bhfuil sé i bhfad níos fearr i mbliana ná mar a bhí sé anuraidh taisc na moltaí a déanadh agus a glacadh leo ins an mBille nua seo.

We have been talking about the need for a refugee Bill for a long time. Many people who are genuinely concerned about the welfare of others have made regular representations to us on the importance of the introduction of such a Bill in conformity with the Geneva Convention and Protocol. I had informed them that a Bill was in the course of preparation and would be brought before the Dáil. I congratulate the Minister on bringing it before us at this stage and compliment the former Minister who initially began work on it. The Minister said the Bill is a combination of ideas and amendments. It is important for a Minister to consider proposed amendments and to take on board any criticisms or ideas.

Amnesty International is happy with the Bill and welcomes the extension of the definition of a refugee but it also has some worries. While I share some of these, they are minor when compared with the previous position. During the debate on the 1994 Bill reference was made to people who are put into prison. The Minister of State, Deputy Carey, was very involved in a case involving a refugee who arrived at Shannon and was imprisoned. It is outrageous that refugees should be put into prison given the generosity extended by other countries such as the United States, Australia and England to our emigrants. Many people had to emigrate from Ireland on economic grounds and we do not have any basis for refusing refugee status to people who leave their countries for similar reasons. I would not like the Minister or the commissioner to be too harsh on those people who had to leave their own country because of unfair treatment and who wish to live here.

I welcome the section which deals with the provision of an interpreter, where possible. This matter was the subject of a long discussion during the course of the debate on the Refugee Bill, 1994. It must be both frustrating and frightening to find oneself in a strange land unable to speak the language of the persons asking the questions. At least those who arrived at Ellis Island in the United States from Ireland, albeit in a poor state of health, had the advantage of being in an English-speaking country. Many died shortly thereafter. Therefore an interpreter should be provided, where possible — a person may speak a rare dialect — before a decision is made on an application. Concern has been expressed about refugees who arrive with forged documentation. It is more than likely that refugees fleeing their country of origin because of financial and other problems will need forged documentation to cross frontiers. This issue has been highlighted by Amnesty International and others. I ask the Minister to consider whether section 8 needs to be amended.

I am delighted a commissioner is to be appointed to decide on applications. He will be independent in carrying out this function and report to the House on the activities of his office. This should instil confidence in the process. I understand that Refugee Trust has raised questions, but I am satisfied that the person appointed will be an expert in this area. Those who are genuinely concerned about the plight of refugees can be assured that they will receive fair treatment.

I am glad the Bill contains provisions under which a person may be granted refugee status on humanitarian grounds having been refused by the commissioner in the first instance. There will always be cases in which the issues involved are not black and white where one is justified in bending the rules. Circumstances can vary and there is a need to avoid injustice. I also welcome the provision under which a person granted refugee status may be reunited with their family. While there is a need to impose a limit, immediate family members should be welcomed. There is a need for confidentiality in dealing with applications as life can be made difficult for the relatives left behind in the country of origin when it is discovered that the person concerned has disappeared. I am concerned about the section which deals with attempts to mislead the commissioner. It should be acknowledged that there is a temptation for refugees in seeking to gain entry to this country to over-state their case. They will do everything they can to ensure they find a welcome here, including telling a white lie to justify their application. There is, therefore, a need for leniency, unless it is established that a refugee is trying to conceal a criminal background.

I am glad that refugees will be able to avail of legal aid in making an application as they could not be expected to defend themselves in court, particularly if they do not speak English. It is important that they are represented by a solicitor and the costs are borne by the State. We are dealing with people with little or no financial resources, not millionaires. This Bill replaces the Refugee Bill, 1994. It is no reflection on the proposers of that Bill that many suggestions were made when it was introduced. It is a bit like writing a speech, the first draft is always the toughest. Having received the recommendations of Members of the Dáil and other interested parties it was easier for the Minister to bring in this Bill and have the difficulties ironed out. There are, however, concerns, some of which I have outlined. I am sure the Minister will do her best to resolve them.

Mr. R. Burke

Fianna Fáil welcomes the general thrust of the Refugee Bill, 1995. It sets out in statutory form the status and rights of persons recognised in the State as refugees and the procedures to be followed in determining whether a person should be afforded recognition as a refugee. As a modern 20th century nation, geared up for the next millennium, we must channel our resources and energies towards aiding persecuted people who wish to legitimately seek refuge in our country.

This Bill was built upon the Refugee Bill, 1994, and the substantial work of my colleague, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn. It represents a major step in our State's provision for the protection of refugees.

Ireland has been a party to the 1951 UN Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees since 1956 and the 1967 Protocol relating to the status of refugees since 1968. However, only now, almost 40 years since we became a party to the Geneva Convention, are we making provision to provide a statutory basis for the implementation of Ireland's obligations under the 1951 convention and the 1967 Protocol as well as providing a statutory framework for the procedure to be followed in the determination of refugee status. The decades have rolled on but at last the Refugee Bill, 1995, will place our undoubted obligations on a statutory footing.

The Refugee Bill, 1995, will have a major bearing on the manner in which we, as a nation, deal with refugees in future. Fianna Fáil broadly welcomes the thrust of the Bill but we will be proposing a number of amendments on Committee Stage.

The status of refugees is a crucial issue. This country has a clear empathy with the plight of refugees. Our nation's history is dotted with litanies of persecution, people living in fear and being driven from their own land. It is now time that Ireland, bearing in mind our history at the hands of others, sets about formally recognising the status and rights of refugees. While Ireland is a party to the convention and has allowed people to enter and reside in Ireland, we have done this without providing any legal basis for our actions.

It is important to emphasise that the whole world did not stop while we waited for this legislation. It is important to recognise that we have welcomed many refugees to our shores over the years on a non-statutory basis and have worked in close co-operation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I know from my time as Minister for Justice that on a regular basis, a number of times a week and sometimes daily, requests were dealt with through the UNHCR so what is being done in this Bill is giving effect to what has been happening in practice. The message should not go out that somehow or other the doors are now to be opened. The welcome mat has been there for legitimate refugees and they have been dealt with, in a non-statutory manner admittedly, but in a compassionate manner as well.

Earlier this month, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs heard at first hand of the tragic experience of some of those at the coalface of the refugee issue. Presentations were made by Rescue Trust, by a Vietnamese programme refugee who arrived in Ireland as a boat person in 1979 and by a prominent doctor who arrived in Ireland a number of years ago seeking asylum from the oppressive regime which existed then and, unfortunately, still exists in Iraq.

Indeed, recently the evil Saddam Hussein showed his true face to the world by holding this so-called referendum vis-à-vis his presidency. Of course, the international community was not surprised to learn he garnered almost 100 per cent of the vote in a clear demonstration of the continued existence of the oppressive Iraqi regime.

As we were made so tragically aware of such appalling regimes throughout the world, together with those countries ravaged by war and other man made oppression, it is incumbent on Ireland to place the status and rights of refugees on a statutory basis.

Graphically outlined at the October joint committee meeting was the fact that, while debating status and rights, we must not ignore the extremely important issue of the provision of health care and rehabilitation facilities which must be made available to severely traumatised refugees. Of course, the issue of the provision of legal aid to refugees must also not be ignored.

Throughout the world and, regrettably, probably until the end of time we will have tyrants, oppressive and selfish rulers. As a modern nation gearing up for the 21st century, Ireland must channel its resources and energies towards aiding and abetting those persecuted people who wish legitimately to seek refuge in our country. Our ports, doors and hearts must be receptive. We should not and must not betray our history by ignoring legitimate refuge to those who knock on our door. Ireland must stand tall and must display a humane and fair nature. Once and for all, it must bury its poor history of accommodating refugees.

Ireland must move urgently on the refugee issue. I therefore welcome, subject to some amendments, the passage of this extremely important Bill through the House. Indeed, the Refugee Bill, 1995, may prove a lifesaver to many persecuted people and it is not often we can say that about a Bill.

Mr. Gallagher

(Laoighis-Offaly): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill as many Members of both Houses are interested in it. Deputy Burke, as vice-chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, is well aware of the extent of interest in the subject among Members there. Such interest is not confined to Members of that committee. The Bill is the fruit of expressions of interest by many Deputies, particularly since the 1994 Bill was published.

I welcome this Bill which has been put forward as a replacement for the Refugee Bill, 1994. I compliment the previous Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, and the previous Government for living up to their commitment to bring this Bill forward. I also compliment the last Minister and Minister of State for listening closely to the views expressed by Members here. It is an example of how legislation should be treated in these Houses in that where genuine concerns are put forward and genuine amendments are suggested, they are listened to by the Minister and Government. This proves we have a better Bill as a result of all that effort.

I am glad the Government gave priority to this Bill by giving special responsibility to the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Deputy Burton, for this issue. Many Deputies will share my concern at the apparent, if not real, slowness of the Department of Justice in many areas. The appointment of a Minister of State with specific responsibility for this issue has helped to have the amendments and points in relation to the 1994 Bill addressed quickly in the Department and to have the Refugee Bill, 1995, brought before the House that we might work on it without undue delay. I compliment the Minister of State for her work in recent months in this area.

I wish to address two main areas: first, the improvements which have been made in the 1995 Bill compared with the 1994 Bill; and, second, some of the criticisms and concerns which have been raised inside and outside this House in relation to the Bill.

The aim of all concerned with the welfare of refugees is to ensure that our procedures for dealing with refugees are placed on a statutory footing.

Deputy Burke referred to the practice that built up administratively over the years which was compassionate in many respects but defective in others. It is necessary to remove any doubt that may exist and to assure refugees that the law affords them as much protection as possible. We should aim to meet the highest international standards of fairness and justice when dealing with refugees and I am satisfied that the general thrust of the Bill will ensure that is so.

Our record in this area has not been the best. Other countries were more lenient with and tolerant of refugees but when the Bill is passed we will be on a par with the best practice in those countries.

In many European countries there is an increasingly hostile attitude towards refugees, particularly economic migrants, since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the ending of the Cold War. Many countries have tightened up procedures where heretofore they had a more liberal refugee policy. In Germany, France, Sweden and other countries there is increasing intolerance towards refugees. I hope that will not happen here. This Bill will ensure that the interests of Irish citizens, refugees and asylum seekers are well balanced and dealt with properly.

The two aspects of the Bill I most welcome are that there will be an independent procedure for determining refugee applications and there will be an independent appeals system. We must ensure they remain independent. I do not doubt that the Department and the Minister will do their duty in that regard. When the Bill is enacted I hope we will not forget about the issue but will avail of the opportunities afforded us to discuss, for example, the annual report of the refugee commissioner.

I welcome clarification of the definition of "refugee" and compliment the Minister on extending it to include those who fear persecution for trade union membership or on grounds of gender or sexual orientation and for including the fear of sexual assault as a threat to freedom. Members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs heard testimony from refugees, some of which was horrific particularly as regards physical assault and sexual assault. In Bosnia many women were the victims of rape or were threatened with sexual assault. It is important to recognise that the threat of sexual assault is a threat to freedom which may force someone to flee their country and become a refugee.

I am glad the Bill provides that refugees automatically will have the legal rights that apply to all persons in this jurisdiction. These are to be extended to family members who are allowed to join their refugee relation in Ireland. Provision is made to allow a dependent relative — not just a spouse, parent or child — admission to the State. This will help in the reunification of families.

The Minister extended the provisions of the Bill beyond the exact requirements of the Geneva Convention and that is welcome. Section 5 gives effect to Article 33 of the convention which states that a State such as ours shall not expel or return a refugee to the frontiers of territories where his or her life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Section 5 goes beyond that provision and extends the protection to people other than refugees. Any person who falls into the category which is defined will not be returned to their own countries. That allows us to treat in a humanitarian way those who arrive at a port or airport and may not have come within the definition of "refugee" but who are threatened or terrorised in their own country. I am glad that the section of Article 33 which prohibits certain people from availing of the Geneva Convention protection is not being applied.

The Bill continues in statutory form the existing provision for the Minister to allow a person who may not technically qualify as a refugee to remain here on humanitarian grounds. Many people have been afforded protection under that provision and it is right that it should be put on a statutory basis. While we wish to be as open as possible to refugees we have a duty to ensure that our procedures are not abused or taken advantage of. In this era of international terrorism, drug trafficking, genocide, money laundering and serious crime the Government must ensure powers exist to weed out and deal with bogus applicants who take advantage of the provisions for genuine refugees. The powers set out in the Bill are necessary, fair and balanced and do not pose a threat to bona fide applicants.

As regards the procedures for making, accepting and determining applications for refugee status I welcome the establishment of the commissioner who will be independent. We know the important and impartial role played by the Ombudsman in vindicating the rights of citizens. The refugee commissioner will have no less an important or independent role. I trust succeeding Governments will ensure the necessary resources are provided through the commissioner and his or her office and avoid the unhappy experience we had a number of years ago with the Ombudsman's office. It is up to us to oversee the Estimates and counter any Government proposal that does not make the necessary resources available to the commissioner.

I welcome the establishment of the refugee appeals board. Those of us who deal with constituents' queries on social welfare, health, etc. appreciate the need for such a procedure. I regret that aspersions have been cast on the independence of the board which will be established by law, act in accordance with the principles of natural justice and be chaired by an experienced lawyer. The board will strengthen significantly the rights of refugee applicants where the commissioner refuses an application.

The right to appeal and to an oral hearing is guaranteed. That is an improvement on the 1994 Bill. The procedures for receiving and dealing with applications are comprehensive, generous and fair to the applicant.

The role of the immigration officer has been changed under the Bill in that, henceforth, he will be obliged to inquire of a person he believes may be a refugee whether he or she wishes to apply for refugee status. The immigration officer must inform that person not only of his or her right to apply for refugee status but also to consult a solicitor and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. In effect the role of the immigration officer will be to inform any person of those rights and refer the application to the Refugee Applications Commissioner.

Critics who say there is confusion over the interpretation of the term "authorised officer", who fear that the "immigration officer" may end up being an "authorised officer" should read the definitions section when they will be reassured that an "authorised officer" will be a member of staff designated by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and that his role will be separate and distinct from that of the immigration officer.

The Bill affords an applicant the automatic right to an interview with an officer of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, the right to present his or her case, which is a considerable improvement on the 1994 proposals.

One matter of concern to many people has been the right of an applicant to the services of an interpreter, considerably strengthened in the provisions of this Bill, and goes as far as is humanly possible. Not every point of entry to the State can guarantee that an interpreter will be available, at short notice, to assist a refugee applicant in dealing with an immigration officer. However, the Bill goes further than its 1994 predecessor in ensuring that, where humanly possible, intepretation is provided. What greater provision can be made in practice than to vest in the authorities the highest possible obligation to provide an interpreter and allow for rare or exceptional cases, for example, when an applicant might refuse to co-operate with our authorities? That high standard of obligation to provide an interpreter applies also where an applicant is interviewed at a later stage in the procedure by an officer of the Refugee Applications Commissioner or at a hearing of the Refugee Appeal Board. I am very happy that the right to an oral hearing and to interpretation, as far as possible, is being provided.

The detention of refugee applicants has been a matter of concern over many years. I am satisfied that the Bill will eliminate the disgraceful instances we witnessed in the past, of persons being put in jail while applications wended their way through the cavernous channels of the Department of Justice. There is need for some provisions to detain people who may be under definite suspicion, for example, of being a drug trafficker or, as we witnessed recently, one of the bombers in Paris. The provisions of this Bill still provide that such a detainee should be brought before a court as soon as possible and, in the case of his or her detention being confirmed by the court, must be brought back to have that decision reviewed every ten days. Another necessary, humane provision is that a person under 17 years of age may not be detained.

The provision of legal aid for refugees has also given rise to anxiety. I note the Government has agreed that legal aid should be provided administratively and I understand that discussions are continuing with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and others on how this provision might be operated. The Minister of State said that she will announce its details during the passage of this Bill, which I hope she will do quite soon.

It is also satisfying to note that programme refugees coming here, such as the Vietnamese, Bosnians and the additional 250 who will soon arrive from the former Yugoslavia, will have their rights protected and enhanced under this Bill. While they may not come within the normal, international definition of "refugee", they will be afforded the same protections.

Another anxiety of those interested in this matter is in relation to the provision for fast-tracking manifestly unfounded applications. A number of the provisions of this Bill should allay such concerns in that they endeavour to safeguard the rights of asylum seekers and ensure they are dealt with in accordance with the highest standards. Of course, we also need to protect Irish citizens and their rights. While we need a fast-track procedure to deal with obvious suspects, such as perpetrators of international crime—and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees agrees that this procedure should form part of our practice—the Bill provides that a person whose application has been found by the UNHCR to be manifestly unfounded must be given reasons therefor, afforded an opportunity to advance a case in their defence, and continue to have the opportunity to appeal to the Refugee Appeal Board, another wise safeguard.

Another concern relates to the Dublin Convention which I understand was drawn up to deal with the position whereby many refugees who were what could be termed "refugees in orbit" were shunted from one European country to another. It is my understanding that the convention aims to guarantee an asylum seeker that his application will be dealt with in one of the member states of the European Union in accordance with the United Nations Convention. That convention does not change the law on asylum but simply sets out the rules for determining which state should deal with an application. While we accept responsibility for an application sent to us from another member state, if it is in accordance with the Dublin Convention, we are not obliged to transfer it. The Bill provides that a person will not be transferred to another state under the terms of the convention unless that state has given a clear commitment to deal with such application in accordance with proper procedures.

The right to work is the final concern I want to address. Under the provisions of this Bill, an applicant for refugee status will not have the right to work but, of course, will be entitled to be maintained under our social welfare code and other provisions. Some people have suggested that we should give asylum seekers a right to work while their applications are being processed. It goes without saying that, when their application has been dealt with and approved, they will have the right to work.

I am aware, from the Minister's opening remarks, that her Department is concerned about giving that right to work prior to an application being determined because it could be abused and it is easy to foresee how that might happen. For example, a person who should normally apply for a visa or work permit might be encouraged to pretend he or she is a refugee to obtain the right to work here sooner. It appears to be reasonable to provide that the State will maintain such an asylum seeker during his or her period of application and be allowed to work here when their application has been granted.

Nonetheless, the overall manner in which the Department of Justice deals with migrants, other than refugees, is in need of overhaul. Any Member who has had dealings with that Department, for example, through the Aliens Office on behalf of people endeavouring to gain entry to this State to study or work, or even those endeavouring to take out Irish citizenship will know its antiquated, convoluted and secretive system for dealing with such applications; even the term "aliens" is offensive, sounding like something from the movie "ET" or "Star Trek".

Now that the Bill has been introduced, I ask the Minister to apply herself and her Department to a total overhaul of the so-called aliens legislation and procedures.

This Bill is a model of the type of legislation that should also cater for other classes of migrants to this country. Now that the Minister of State has been successful with this one, perhaps she can persuade her Department to examine that other category as a matter of priority.

Mr. Kemmy

I whole-heartedly welcome the provisions of this Bill which will give effect to the legislative measures we have been seeking for refugees for many years — and represent a good attempt to deal with the worldwide problem of refugees today.

Living as I do in Limerick city, close to Shannon Airport, I have had much experience of refugees seeking asylum here, stretching back to the 1950s, when I was a young boy, when Hungarian refugees came here, having fled their country. They were settled in an Army camp at Knocklisheen, near Limerick city, organised by our military forces. Indeed one could write a book about them, some were very resourceful, even to the extent that, after the heating had been turned off at midnight, they made their own form of poteen. Those refugees did not arrive carrying prayer books or rosary beads. Many of them were resourceful. After a time many left Ireland but some married local people in County Limerick and went into business. One or two even played soccer for the local senior team. It was a long chapter and a book could be written about our experiences in dealing with the Hungarians who were the first refugees to come to Ireland.

In later years Ireland accepted refugees from Chile following the overthrow of President Allende's democratic government. I met them when they arrived at Shannon where they settled since the Shannon Development Company was good enough to provide housing for them. I still meet some of these refugees today and help with their problems. This is also a long saga because, contrary to what Members might think, despite their being upholders of democracy, these refugees were not united when they came to Ireland. They were divided into factions but, perhaps, were not as bad as is the Fianna Fáil Party at times. They were not one large happy family. They all had different opinions about Chilean politics and their country's future and I often experienced problems trying to reconcile those differences. That I do not speak Spanish proved a handicap in dealing with them. I helped with their problems in relation to medical cards, employment with Shannon Development regarding housing. Some of them found employment, learned to speak English and went on to live good lives in the midwestern region and have contributed to the life and economy of that part of the country.

Ireland has accepted in the region of 600 refugees from Bosnia and other places. I am often unhappy with the way these people are treated, but by and large, they are well housed and receive an allowance from the Government through the Midwestern Health Board. However, the majority are not provided with any formal education. I would like to see legal refugees, who have been cleared to enter the country, being more fully integrated into the community. They should be able to attend courses in English and FÁS courses. There are times when they can be seen aimlessly walking the streets in County Clare and I do not like that. It is not good enough to simply have them live in Ireland as refugees. We must endeavour to integrate them into society so that they can lead useful lives.

It is perhaps a cliché to say so, but when in Rome do as the Romans do.

We should not place refugees in a ghetto, lock them away in their houses, give them a weekly allowance and say everything is rosy in the garden. It is not. That is not an adequate way in which to deal with refugees. They must be treated as human beings and involved in society. I would like the Bill to be strengthened to integrate refugees into our society. They can learn the language and engage in educational and occupational courses. There is scope for that to be included in the Bill.

During my time dealing with refugees I discovered that they fall into two categories political refugees and financial refugees fleeing from their debts. Not everyone who seeks asylum in Ireland is fleeing a tyrannical, authoritarian regime. Some people run away from debts and others from their wives or from unhappy marriages. People have been known to flee their country for many reasons. It is not always the people who are downcast, depressed or persecuted who are at the forefront of those who flee. People who are sharp-witted often see an opportunity to run away from their duties and responsibilities, be they familial or financial.

We have a rather sentimental attitude to refugees because many people had to leave this country, at various times in the past, for largely financial — though sometimes political — reasons. We have a soft spot for anyone who uses the word refugee but it covers a wide multitude of people. Certain criteria needs to be laid down in the legislation to deal with grey areas. I was strenuously lobbied by Amnesty International in recent months before the introduction of this Bill. I informed them of our good intentions to introduce the best, fairest, most humanitarian and just legislation possible. At the same time we should not leave ourselves open to abuse and exploitation by some people. Amnesty International has been happy with our approach but that organisation is still unhappy with three or four areas where it believes the Minister has not taken its representations fully into account.

I am happy that this is a good, honest and intelligent attempt to deal with the problem of refugees. It also brings Ireland into line with other humane countries that were perhaps, ahead of us in this area. The 1951 Geneva Convention and the 1967 Protocol to that convention are fully covered by this legislation. The Bill contains a definition to the word "refugee" and lays down parameters on humanitarian grounds. Not much more can be done because, regardless of what Bill is enacted by this House, unforeseen problems will always arise. We can consider such areas as they arise. This is a good, honest attempt to deal with a problem which plays on everyone's conscience.

The Scandinavian countries have given a very good example in this area. Sweden has been very humane in dealing with refugees. We could learn from that country's ability to contain such a mixture of people and maintain its economy and the cohesiveness of its society.

We have difficulties in so far as we have high unemployment — I am pleased to note the figure for this is decreasing — and problems dealing with the travelling community. Indeed, we might ask how relevant is the travelling community to the question of refugees? It has been difficult to integrate the travelling community into our society and to ensure that a dichotomy does not exist between the travelling and settled communities. Other countries have more easily been able to deal with the influx of refugees than Ireland. Perhaps we can learn from their example. The fact that there is such high unemployment in Ireland militates against giving employment to refugees. Perhaps we can tackle this problem through a process of greater integration, more vocational courses involving FÁS, etc., refugees should not be placed in ghettos.

I would like to share time with Deputy Bree if the House is agreeable?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is quite satisfactory.

Mr. Kemmy

I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. I assure Amnesty International that we intend to do our utmost to bring Irish legislation into line with the very best international legislation in this regard. I expect the Minister will deal compassionately on Committee and Report Stages with any areas which have not been fully covered. Amnesty International might not be entirely satisfied since we cannot permit anyone to dictate to us what we should do. I have given some examples of the areas highlighted by Amnesty International but I did not want to be too graphic or hurtful to any race. We have an obligation to be fair to everyone. Irish people in general will be satisfied that this is a good, civilised Bill which will stand comparison with any similar legislation in Europe or the world.

Mr. Bree

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important legislation. It is significant that this debate coincides with the 50th anniversary of the United Nations which has worked well on behalf of refugees. It is very important critical legislation. As legislators, we must ensure that it is correct. We must ensure that those who seek asylum in Ireland are treated in a scrupulously fair and impartial manner. Many Deputies believe that the Bill introduced last year did not deal adequately with the interests of asylum applicants and I firmly believe the Government took the right decision when it went back to the drawing board rather than proceed with rushed and ill-conceived legislation.

As the Minister pointed out, the purpose of the Bill is to give statutory effect to our obligations under the 1951 UN convention on the status of refugees. Whereas Ireland has been party to the UN convention since 1956 we have only implemented it on an administrative basis. We have been criticised for the way in which we deal with asylum seekers and while this may not be the place to discuss the veracity of these claims, I hope this Bill will alleviate the problems that exist.

It should be noted that Ireland has never shied away from its international obligations to refugees and asylum seekers, which can be borne out by the figures furnished by the Minister on overseas assistance for refugees, the provision for programme refugees and for those seeking asylum. It is worth nothing that the Government contributes substantially to the welfare of refugees overseas in the context of our overseas development aid programme. This year the Government allocated £5 million for emergency humanitarian assistance and a further £3.5 million for rehabilitation programmes. In addition, there is a grant this year of £1 million to the general budget of the UN High Commission for Refugees and a further £350,000 to the UN relief and works agency to support Palestinian refugees.

Members may be aware that 1,000 programme refugees—550 Vietnamese and 450 Bosnians from the former Yugoslavia—have been admitted to Ireland under the terms of specific Government decisions and on 29 August the Government agreed to admit another 250 people from the former Yugoslavia together with their close relatives. By the end of 1996 there will be approximately 1,200 programme refugees in Ireland.

This Bill is a replacement for the 1994 Bill which had similar objectives but incorporates the significant number of amendments tabled to the 1994 Bill. This is a reflection of the Government's commitment to ensuring the success of such an important Bill. Its main objective is to significantly strengthen the applicant's right to fair procedures in the determination process. The Bill strengthens the safeguards and procedures and clarifies the entitlements of asylum seekers and refugees. The Bill provides that all applications will now be examined by an independent refugee applications commissioner with a right of appeal to a five person appeal board. These provisions obviously represent an advance on the 1994 Bill which provided for a three person refugee applications board and a one member appeals tribunal. It also contains significant new safeguards in that an applicant will have a right to be interviewed with authorised officer of the commission and, in the case of an appeal, a right to an oral hearing before the refugee appeal board.

The Bill extends the provisions for family reunification so that as well as those family members, other family members may be admitted to reside in this State where a dependency relationship exists between the refugee and the family. Another provision that is imperative for a fair and open hearing of each case is the obligation to provide interpretation for refugee applicants. This obligation has been increased to such an extent that interpretation must be provided in all but the most exceptional circumstances. The detention provisions provide for safeguards which permit detention of asylum seekers in exceptional cases. In addition, a person under 17 years may not now be detained and the intervals at which continued detention must be reviewed by a court have been reduced from the 21 days permitted under the 1994 Bill to ten days in this Bill, a most welcome provision.

The provisions relating to deportation have also been revised to ensure the highest standards of natural justice and, in addition, the Bill also includes consideration of compelling humanitarian cases which would otherwise fall outside the definition of a refugee. The emphasis on natural justice and humanitarianism is very important and I am particularly pleased that this is included in the Bill.

The extension of the definition of refugee is welcome and under this Bill a refugee will be taken to include persons persecuted because of their gender, sexual orientation or membership of a trade union. All Members can be proud of this Bill as I believe it is one of the best planned and most extensive Bills to come before the House for a long time.

It is significant that this debate coincides with the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the United Nations. More significant, however, is the fact that it coincides with the 150th anniversary of the Great Famine which sparked off the Irish diaspora. This has remained a perpetual characteristic of our history for the past 150 years and, therefore, we, more than most other countries, have an obligation to support refugees and asylum seekers.

I am sure this Bill will meet the international obligations and will serve as an example to many more countries throughout the world.

Mr. Callely

I welcome the Bill in principle. This issue has given rise to a great deal of controversy in recent years, and many Members have highlighted what was seen to be the unfair treatment of people who arrived in Ireland, having been forced to leave their country. They were unable to avail of a system that would lead to recognition of their refugee status. Most of those individuals were unfairly locked up in our prisons, and it is wrong that prison places should be used for such a purpose when there are other more pressing demands on them.

I welcome the fact that after such a long time — this relates to a convention signed by Ireland in 1951 — we are putting provisions for refugees on a statutory footing. The disturbances in Yugoslavia and other places have seen huge numbers of people having to flee from country to country. Not long ago I tabled a number of questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and was quite surprised to hear that such large numbers of people who are discommoded in this way become refugees and how little power there is within the EU system to address the problems of refugees in a crisis.

People who are displaced from their country of origin are in a traumatic situation. It is only fair then that a country such as Ireland, which signed the 1951 convention, should introduce a Bill to give refugees statutory footing and ensure the highest standards of fairness in dealing with them.

I was particularly perturbed when I first heard of the aliens department in the Department of Justice. Although I appreciate that it is a pragmatic way of describing the department and the people it deals with, it is most insensitive to the people who have to deal with such a department through no fault or desire of their own. I would like to pay tribute to my party colleague, Deputy Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, who gave a firm commitment shortly after her appointment as Minister for Justice to give the aliens department a more appropriate title and make it more user friendly.

I have had occasion in the past to communicate with the UN regarding people who needed the assistance of a public representative. Dealing with the Department of Justice at that time I was distraught and dismayed by the lack of services for the refugees in question. A near neighbour of mine who was involved in the Irish Refugee Council forcefully brought to my attention the inadequacy of the facilities available in Ireland to address the needs of refugees. Since I have gained a little interest in this area, I have seen firsthand as a member of the Eastern Health Board the board's involvement with a number of other relevant departments, in helping quite a number of refugees over the last two or three years. Facilities and services were put in place to ensure that these traumatised people were integrated into society in the most appropriate fashion. I congratulate those involved in the projects under the umbrella of the Eastern Health Board. I was very impressed by the relatively short period involved in ensuring full integration of the refugees into Irish society. I would have expected, because of language barriers etc. that support services would have been required over a prolonged period of time — months or years. It was quite the opposite. With the necessary supports and services in place these people were fully integrated into society and quite enjoying Irish life in a very short time. I congratulate all involved. Their work shows that when we undertake a project like this, identify the costs and put in place all the necessary supports, the integration of refugees can be very successful.

Most aspects of the Bill have been covered by various speakers. Perhaps the Minister could, in the House or by way of letter to me, clarify what structures it will be necessary to put in place when this Bill is passed, the timescale relating to the necessary new structures, the costings that have been calculated for the provision of them and the allocations that have been earmarked to ensure that the structures can be put in place.

Mr. D. McDowell

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute on this Bill. I congratulate the Minister and her predecessor on the considerable amount of work that has been done in preparing this legislation over several years. The Private Members' debate on the Refugee Bill introduced by Deputy Alan Shatter was one of the first debates in which I spoke when I was elected to this House in 1992. I was pleased at that stage to be able to welcome the principle of Deputy Shatter's Bill. I am glad that after three years of gestation we finally have a Government Bill before this House.

I agree with my constituency colleague regarding immigration. It is rarely that we get the opportunity to speak consecutively in this House and to be in agreement. Many Members of this House have had experiences similar to his in dealing with the aliens office at the Department of Justice. The manner in which that office deals with certain issues, including the secrecy in which it operates what is, effectively, British immigration law is a cause of concern. It is an accident of history that we have a free travel zone with the United Kingdom. However, as a result we enforce UK immigration regulations that are not appropriate for a sovereign State such as this. I was recently contacted by a Jordanian, a skilled employee in the Dublin branch of an American multi-national company, who told me his mother, who is in her seventies, was refused a visitors visa and was not given a reason. That caused considerable distress to her and her family. Her son has been working legally here in a very skilled job for some years. Also, many medical students have been refused, on tenuous grounds, an extension on their stay here. It is unacceptable that the criteria used for such refusals are not made known. We should subscribe to the Schengen Convention to which the majority of EU members have subscribed. While I understand the difficulty in respect of the common travel zone between here and the United Kingdom, the current position is unacceptable.

I welcome the Bill as it will improve matters for refugees. I congratulate the Minister on her announcement to provide free legal aid for refugees, and I hope that is not seen as a vested interest in the matter. It could be provided through private practitioners or the legal aid system — the most sensible way of providing it — or by commissioning a council or agency to do so. Most refugees cannot afford legal aid. Also, as many of them come from Cuba or Eastern Europe they do not speak English. Therefore, I welcome the provision that places a greater onus on the State to provide interpreting facilities. I accept that may be impossible in all cases and there will also be those who refuse to co-operate with the State.

The practice of detaining willy-nilly refugees in Mountjoy or elsewhere is disturbing. Therefore, I welcome the provision that delimits the circumstances in which people can be detained in custody while their applications are being considered. This emphasises the importance of avoiding delay in dealing with applications. The majority of refugees who come here are in poor circumstances, mentally and otherwise. Therefore, it is important that delay in dealing with applications is of a minimum.

The Bill will give statutory effect to current administrative procedures. One of the main reasons for its introduction is to close the gap that exists between practice and theory in regard to this matter. While the theory set down by the Department is acceptable, there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence to show that in many cases it is not put into practice. Even with statutory provisions in place, we must examine the way State agencies and the general public deal with asylum applicants. The Department of Social Welfare, in particular, is not consistent in the way it deals with such people. Most applicants rely on supplementary welfare and while the provisions that apply to citizens in respect of such benefit are not clear cut, they are much less clear cut in respect of asylum applicants. Their entitlement to local authority housing must also be examined. Many of the refugees who arrive at Shannon are housed in bed and breakfast accommodation in County Clare and others are housed in a home operated by the Red Cross in Dublin. Additional facilities are required to cater for the number of applicants for refugee status, which has increased significantly in recent years. In particular, when dealing with programme refugees it is necessary to provide enhanced back-up services. We can scarcely call ourselves a multilingual society, and to enable refugees cope with living here, the State should teach them basic English.

Our attitude to refugees differs somewhat from the rest of Western Europe in that most people here welcome refugees. However, it is regrettable that is not true in all cases. Many refugees, even when they have acquired refugee status, report difficulties in securing housing and this can only be deemed as an undercurrent of racism. Therefore, as soon as possible the State should subscribe to the United Nations Convention on Racial Discrimination.

I welcome the provision that will permit the Minister, in compelling humanitarian circumstances, to allow a person who does not fall within the Bill's definition of a refugee to remain here. I also welcome the extension of the definition of "refugee" to include those persecuted on grounds of gender, sexual orientation or trade union activity.

Amnesty International expressed concern at the fact that the Minister will be allowed implement, by regulation, the Dublin Convention. While we must be sensitive in this regard, it is part of our obligation as EU members. The Bill will allow the Minister not to apply the convention in circumstances in which the transfer to another country of an asylum seeker would not be in the interest of the individual concerned. I hope that measure is used in a sensible fashion.

I welcome the Bill and commend the Minister, and her predecessor, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, on their work in this regard. I hope it ensures that our treatment of refugees will be of the highest international standards.

Mr. Broughan

I concur with the sentiments of my colleague, Deputy McDowell, in welcoming the Bill.

Debate adjourned.