Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Dec 1997

Vol. 485 No. 1

Adjournment Debate. - Refugee Legislation.

Dr. Upton

I thank the Minister for taking the time and trouble to come into the House to respond to this question.

Yesterday the Minister announced new administrative arrangements to deal with asylum seekers. I have asked for this matter so that these proposals can be discussed in the House. The Government parties committed themselves, in An Action Programme for the Millennium, to implementing them in the Refugee Act. There were no qualifications; it was a priority and it was going to be done. Legislation for handling applications for asylum already exists. It was passed by the Oireachtas and awaits only a commencement order from the Minister. The clearest possible commitment has been given that that will happen.

Will the Minister confirm that these new administrative measures will not further delay the full implementation of the Refugee Act? I ask him to declare in absolute terms that the Refugee Act will be implemented without further delay.

Yesterday's press release stated that these administrative arrangements, which were outlined in a letter to the UNHCR, were drafted with extensive consultation with the UNHCR. The UNHCR previously stated that the Refugee Act is the ideal legislation to handle refugee applications and views these new arrangements as temporary stopgap measures. I ask the Minister to expand on some of the items contained in the letter to the UNHCR, in particular the paragraph which deals with translation facilities.

I acknowledge and welcome the fact that the letter, which is signed by a civil servant, gives a commitment to provide translation facilities where possible, but it does not give a right to such facilities. The letter to the UNHCR does not provide a guarantee of legal representation where that is appropriate. Indeed, in the Minister's press statement it is stated in the second last paragraph that "where possible the new arrangements broadly follow the philosophy of the Refugee Act". I wonder why the term "where possible" is included. I would like the Minister to outline exactly what is not possible and why. I am rather concerned about the phrase "broadly follow the philosophy of the Refugee Act". That provides 1,001 escape routes from following the provisions of the Act.

In terms of dealing with refugees, we are still operating on a non-statutory basis. All the agencies concerned with this matter seem anxious that it should be done on a statutory basis. The agencies seem anxious that a commissioner for refugees should be appointed. I understand there is a problem in terms of a law case currently before the courts, but I wonder if it would not be appropriate for the Minister to introduce amending legislation to deal with that matter which relates to an age ceiling on people entitled to apply for the position of commissioner. It is important that that matter is resolved.

The central question here in relation to what was outlined in yesterday's press release is whether the provision will be permanent and whether the full provisions of the Refugee Act will be implemented. Can we expect that people who apply for refugee or asylum status in this country will have their case heard in an open and fair way rather than having it heard in a manner which, to a large extent, still reverts to the old method which was quite unsatisfactory to a large number of people?

Mr. O'Donoghue

I have told the House on a number of occasions that I implemented sections 1, 2, 5, 22 and 25 of the Act with effect from 29 August last. I have also told it that there is presently a High Court injunction preventing the appointment of a refugee applications commissioner under the Act. Given this litigation, I am not in a position to appoint a refugee applications commissioner, an appointment central to the introduction of the remaining sections of the Act. In the absence of a commissioner no applications for refugee status can be considered and the entire process will come to a complete stop. This would be highly undesirable for all concerned.

In light of the impasse over the appointment of the refugee applications commissioner, my desire to deal with all applications for refugee status fairly, efficiently and in a timely manner and the need to put in place an interim arrangement to deal with the current large caseload, I met with the representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Both the UNHCR and I were satisfied that the arrangement made in 1985 which involves formal consultation with the UNHCR in each individual case was no longer workable due to the huge increase in numbers applying and that a new approach was necessary. I emphasise that this was not only my view but also the view of the UNHCR. Extensive consultations with the representative have resulted in the establishment of a procedure to deal with the backlog of cases which has built up over the last two years and currently stands at approximately 4,000.

In a letter regarding the new arrangement the UNHCR stated, inter alia, “Overall we believe that the revised document provides for a balanced administrative procedure pending the entry into force of the Refugee Act”. Despite comments to the contrary, there has been consultation with the UNHCR who has expressed her satisfaction with the procedures pending the entry into force of the Refugee Act. This is of considerable importance in light of the current debate. Details of the new arrangement have been circulated to Members of this House and a copy has been placed in the Library.

The House will be aware that I received Government approval for the recruitment of additional staff to help deal with the applications in hand. I expect the new staff to be in place in early 1998. Accommodation has also been obtained to house the new staff together with the Eastern Health Board's refugee unit, the UNHCR and a proposed legal advice service for asylum seekers. This will be a one-stop-shop for asylum seekers and should be ready next spring.

The new arrangement, which broadly follows the philosophy of the Refugee Act, is an interim measure pending a review by me of the Act and the conclusion of the legal action currently taking place. In this latter regard, a statement of claim in the matter was received by the Chief State Solicitor from the plaintiff only this week. In so far as the review of the Act is concerned, this has been necessitated by the large increase in applications over the past year. When the Act was drafted it was envisaged that applications would be of the order of hundreds per annum, not thousands as is the case. When the number of applications began to increase last year it was decided that the refugee applications commissioner position should be changed from part-time to a contract appointment for three years. Given the current number of applications, even this solution will be unworkable. The Act provides for only one commissioner with no powers of delegation. One person could not cope with the number of applications in hand and the current backlog would only be exacerbated.

The number of new applications has begun to fall in recent months. If this level of decrease continues and the new arrangements result, as is the intention, in the backlog being cleared then it may be possible to implement the provisions of the Act, as currently drafted, pertaining to the commissioner. If not, I will bring forward fresh proposals to Government.

The Government will respect its international obligations in so far as asylum seekers are concerned and will grant a safe haven to refugees. However, there is a clear distinction between a refugee and an illegal immigrant. I am satisfied that I have a good enough insight into the human condition to know that there are no easy cases.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.55 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 16 December 1997.