I am pleased that the Refugee Bill, 1995, is before this House today. This Bill's predecessor, the Refugee Bill, 1994, was discussed in 1994 in the Dáil Select Committee on Legislation and Security and, of course, this Bill has been fully discussed and passed by Dáil Éireann.
The primary purposes of this Bill and of its predecessor are essentially the same, namely, to place our procedures for dealing with applications for refugee status on a statutory footing and to ensure that those procedures meet the highest standards in terms of fairness and impartiality towards applicants.
This is the first time that Members of this House have had an opportunity of discussing these procedures and I very much look forward to the issues being debated here particularly because I know many Senators have spoken about asylum seekers and refugees over a long period. Because this is the first opportunity Members of this House will have had to examine this Bill, it would be useful if I were to outline the background to the decision to introduce legislation to deal with asylum seekers and refugees.
Ireland acceded to the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees in November 1956 and became a party to the related 1967 New York Protocol in November 1968. Since our accession, we have fulfilled our obligations under both instruments, although the procedures to give effect to those obligations were administrative and were never placed on a statutory footing. In the mid 1980s, these administrative procedures were revised in consultation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, usually referred to as the UNHCR. The procedures were held to be legally binding by the Supreme Court in 1992.
However, it is generally accepted that these arrangements are in need of overhaul. There is a perception that the modern climate of opinion requires a transparent and formal procedure with clearly defined rights and duties for the various participants in the process. This is also my view. There is also a perception that, because asylum seekers are a particularly vulnerable group of people. it is in the interests of justice that their rights and entitlements should be clearly set out in a statute. Apart from that, the arrangements were put in place at a time when the State was receiving only a handful of applications for refugee status each year. The scale at which applications are made has increased at an ever faster rate in the 1990s. It has gone from 31 applications in 1991 to 355 in 1994 and 424 in 1995. In 1996, up to the end of last week, there have been 182 applications. The current procedures were not designed to handle. and are incapable of handling, these volumes.
In 1993, an interdepartmental committee was established to examine all aspects of policy and practice in relation to non-nationals. Due to the importance of the issue of political asylum, the committee gave priority to this subject and produced an interim report which recommended that the existing administrative arrangements be placed on a statutory footing with the important addition of an appeals authority. The committee also recommended that an independent body be established to examine and make recommendations on applications for refugee status. These recommendations were accepted by the previous Government and formed the basis of the Refugee Bill, 1994. That Bill was promoted by the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, and had reached Committee Stage when the Government of which she was a member was dissolved.
An extensive range of amendments was proposed to the 1994 Bill, some of which were farreaching. When the new Government took office, I decided that, rather than proceed with the Bill as it then stood, it would be better to overhaul it thoroughly taking account of the proposed amendments and the points made in debate by Members on all sides. The then Minister for Justice had an open mind in relation to the many constructive suggestions made and the current Bill is the result of an exhaustive consultative process. It was most useful that the 1994 Bill went through the Select Committee process. Accordingly, this Bill is designed to give statutory effect to our international obligations with respect to refugees and to introduce an independent procedure for determining who is entitled to refugee status as well as providing for an appeals system.
Central to the Bill is the question, who constitutes a refugee? It is, therefore, important that we are clear as to what is meant by the term "refugee". The internationally accepted definition of a refugee is set out in the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by the 1967 Protocol. This definition is used in section 2 of the Bill which provides that "a refugee" means:
. . . a person who, owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his or her nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his or her former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it . . .
When the 1994 Bill was before the Select Committee on Legislation and Security, amendments were tabled to include within the definition persecution for reasons of gender, sexual orientation or membership of a trade union. The previous Minister for Justice was sympathetic to the suggested amendments and promised to examine the matter in consultation with the parliamentary draftsman. I followed up that undertaking and the definition has been augmented in this Bill by an explanatory provision in the definition section to the effect that membership of a particular social group includes the membership of a trade union and also includes membership of a group of persons whose defining characteristic is their belonging to the female or male sex or having a particular sexual orientation. The inclusion of provisions on gender or sexual orientation discrimination in this Bill is a substantial advance by this country in broadening the definition of a refugee.
The first substantive issue addressed by the Bill is the question of the legal status of a person recognised as a refugee in this State. Section 3 sets out the statutory rights of a person who is declared to be a refugee. These rights will apply to all persons already recognised as refugees in the State as well as any persons recognised as refugees in the future. Section 18, which I will discuss later, provides that these rights will also apply to close relatives and other dependent relatives admitted to the State for family reunification purposes.
Articles 3 to 34 of the UN Convention set out a number of specific rights which should be afforded to recognised refugees admitted into a state. This aspect is addressed in section 3 of the Bill and the general approach taken is to give recognised refugees rights similar to those held by Irish citizens. Section 3, as is made clear from the first subsection, is not intended to be exhaustive. In other words, we give to refugees the rights we give to Irish citizens but we may give additional facilitation where there are special needs. It is only intended to cover issues which are particularly relevant to refugees, or where there might be a doubt as to the legal entitlement of a refugee because he or she is not an Irish citizen. Refugees will automatically have those legal rights which apply to all persons in this jurisdiction.
Article 33 of the UN Convention provides no contracting state shall expel or return a refugee to the frontiers of territories where his or her life or freedom would be threatened on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. It goes on to state that a refugee who poses a danger to the security of the country, or who has been convicted of serious crime and who constitutes a danger to the community, cannot claim the benefit of this prohibition on expulsion or return.
Article 33 is given effect by section 5 of the Bill. Indeed, section 5 goes further than Article 33 in that it applies to all persons, not just refugees, and it has been decided not to apply the second paragraph of Article 33 which prevents certain categories of people from availing of its protection. The Government has decided no person will be expelled to the frontiers of a country where the life or freedom of that person would be threatened on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The section is a matter of general immigration law; it is of general application and is not limited to applicants for refugee status.
Section 5 also incorporates a provision to put beyond doubt that a persons's freedom shall be regarded as being threatened if the person is likely to be the subject of a serious assault, including an assault of a sexual nature. This reflects concerns expressed during the debate on the 1994 Bill that sexual violence can be used as an instrument of persecution.
I will turn now to the procedures for determining whether a person is entitled to refugee status. The UN Convention defines the term refugee but the procedures to be adopted to determine who is entitled to be recognised as a refugee are left to the discretion of individual states.
One of the main purposes of the Bill is to provide for statutory procedures which are not only fair but are seen to be fair and which fully comply with our commitments under the UN Convention. To this end, the Bill goes to considerable lengths to ensure all valid applications are thoroughly examined, every applicant has the opportunity to put forward his or her case and there is a comprehensive appeals procedure. The primary purpose of the Bill, therefore, is to safeguard the rights of applicants and to see to it that no valid application is rejected. The State and the Government have an obligation to ensure all applicants are fairly treated. However, we also have a duty to make sure the interests and safety of Irish citizens are not jeopardised. In addition, as a member state of the European Union, we have obligations to the other member states in this area. The Bill has to take all these matters into account.
The Bill must also ensure that the refugee determination process is not abused. While we are all aware of the difficulties that can face genuine refugees fleeing and escaping persecution, it would be foolish and irresponsible if we did not also recognise that many applicants are seeking to escape from economic hardship rather than persecution. We may have every sympathy for such persons but it must be borne in mind that the primary purpose of the Bill is not to provide a solution to problems caused by economic hardship, but rather to offer protection to persons fleeing persecution. Of course, even cases involving economic hardship may not be clear-cut. There could be aspects of particular situations which would have to be examined to assess if genuine convention grounds for seeking the protection of the State exist; but such consideration must be undertaken in a way that ensures that the integrity of the asylum process is maintained.
There may also be people who apply for refugee status who pose a threat to the community. This category would include a hardened criminal, a terrorist, a drug trafficker, an ex-dictator or other person who has gained international notoriety and is seeking a country of refuge. The Government has an important responsibility to protect the public and the national interest against such threats and, accordingly, powers to detain such people and in certain cases to prevent them entering the country in the first place must be provided. As I pointed out in the Dáil, those powers have been used only twice: once in the case of a Nazi war criminal and once in the case of a member of the South African security forces who had a record.
I will now turn to the details of the application procedures provided for in the Bill. The first step for most applicants will arise when they arrive at Irish immigration controls at one of our airports or sea ports. The intention behind section 8 is that, if an immigration officer has reason to believe a person might be a refugee, he or she must be informed that they may apply for a declaration of refugee status. The person must also be told that he or she may consult a solicitor and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Persons will, therefore, have access to independent advice before deciding whether to apply for a declaration under the Bill. The situation will be slightly different for persons already in the State. Whether they are here legally or illegally, they will apply to the Minister for Justice and then be given an appointment for an interview with an immigration officer.
At this point I draw the attention of the House to the provision in section 8 (2), which provides for the assistance of interpreters where necessary and possible. I assure Senators that this wording has been devised not only to place the highest possible onus on the authorities to provide an interpreter but also to allow for the rare and exceptional case where a person refuses to co-operate with our authorities. I am satisfied that it means, in effect, that interpretation facilities must, for practical purposes, be provided as a matter of course.
Section 8 (5) is an important provision in that it ensures that procedures are put in place to safeguard the interests of unaccompanied children who arrive at our shores. That is a new phenomenon and we have had a small number of such children in the recent past. I am providing that a child in such circumstances is given assistance within the meaning of the Child Care Act, 1991, such as custody arrangements, accommodation and so forth. To ensure that the child's best interests are protected I am also providing that the health board concerned should decide whether an application for refugee status should be made and should appoint a person to make an application on behalf of the child.
If a person makes an application for refugee status, it will be referred to the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the UNHCR will be notified. However, before I elaborate on how applications will be processed, I should mention what will happen to the applicant while the application is being dealt with. This is governed by section 9 of the Bill. If the applicant has arrived from abroad, once he or she makes an application for a declaration regarding refugee status, the immigration officer will be obliged to give the applicant leave to enter the State. I must emphasise that the immigration officer is being given no discretion to refuse entry to any person who applies for a declaration. It is also important to note that, with the exception of Dublin Convention cases — I will explain the situation in relation to such cases later — once a person is given leave to enter under this section, he or she will be entitled to remain until either the application is withdrawn or finally determined. This is important for the applicant as it means that he or she can remain during the processing of an appeal.
However, under section 9 (15) entry will be refused to a person who is the subject of an exclusion order made for national security or public policy reasons. This provision is an essential safeguard to ensure that the public interest and national security are protected. However, such orders are not and will not be made frequently. I emphasise that they must be made by the Minister for Justice and they must be laid before and approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas. Subsection (15) will be a rare exception to the usual practice.
In general, however, all applicants will be admitted to the State and, as I have already mentioned, under section 9(2), will be entitled to remain until an application has been processed. Applicants who would not otherwise be entitled to enter and remain in the State will be subject to certain controls which are set out in section 9 (4) to (14).
One such control is that applicants will not be allowed to work or go into business while their applications are being considered. It must be remembered that asylum seekers are applicants for legal status in this country. If they are granted this status, of course they can work; but until such a determination is made it would be inappropriate that they should be allowed to work and establish themselves in the State. We must be careful not to create conditions which could make it attractive to abuse the asylum procedures. In most cases, as at present, the taxpayer, through the health boards, local authorities or central government Departments, will carry the cost of housing and maintaining asylum seekers. As I said, asylum seekers will have the same rights to education, social welfare and housing services as an Irish citizen.
As I mentioned, immigration officers will not have any discretion to refuse entry to asylum applicants and accordingly the general rule will be that such applicants will be given free entry into the country. However, if an immigration officer is clearly faced with a suspected foreign criminal or terrorist who is applying for asylum, we do not wish to see such a person free to walk our streets. Section 9 (8) provides that, in the particular circumstances listed in the subsection, an immigration officer or member of the Garda Síochána may detain the person in question.
Because depriving a person of his or her liberty is such a serious step, important safeguards have been included in this portion of the Bill. The principal protection for asylum seekers under these provisions lies in the role of the District Court. That court will have the responsibility of reviewing each such detention at ten day intervals and either releasing the detainee, subject to conditions if necessary, or satisfying itself that continued detention is proper in the circumstances.
I have also provided in section 10 an obligation on the commissioner and the Appeal Board to deal speedily with an application from a detained person. Obviously the intention is to ensure that a person should not be detained any longer than is absolutely necessary. I might add that in our experience of applicants for refugee status thus far, detention is a very rare occurrence and seldom lasts more than a few hours.
To return to the processing of applications for a declaration regarding refugee status, the question arises as to who will investigate the applications. To ensure that the process is not just fair but is also seen to be fair, the Bill proposes that applications will be considered by an independent commissioner who will investigate each case and make a recommendation. Section 6 and the First Schedule provide for the commissioner who will be called the Refugee Applications Commissioner. The commissioner will have had at least seven years' experience as a practising barrister or solicitor and is required by the Bill to be independent in the exercise of his or her functions. The commissioner will also have his or her own staff to assist in investigations and he or she will be in a position to provide an independent and objective assessment in each case as to whether the person concerned should be granted a declaration of refugee status.
Section 11 of the Bill deals with the investigation of applications by the commissioner. The first step taken by the commissioner will be the appointment of an authorised officer to interview the applicant and to report on the application to the commissioner. This section gives an applicant an automatic right to an interview with an authorised officer.
In addition to the interview, and the commissioner's own investigations, the commissioner may seek the assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Justice or the UNHCR, in verifying the applicant's claim. The applicant will, of course, be free to submit material or representations to support his or her application. In every case the applicant must be supplied with the material and observations received relevant to the case so that he or she may rebut or explain any material which might not support his or her application.
While an applicant will be given every opportunity to present his or her case and to be aware of any material which might militate against his or her application, this is not an adversarial process. The commissioner's remit is not to come up with facts or arguments to counter an applicant's case to be treated as a refugee but rather to carry out research and investigation into all applications. Applicants are, of course, expected to co-operate to the best of their ability with the process of investigation but, of course, that ability will often be hampered by the difficulties of communication with the country of alleged persecution. The commissioner's role will be to establish whether there is sufficient information available to validate the applicant. The independence and objectivity of the commissioner's function will work in favour of all genuine asylum seekers.
However, experience has shown that investigations of this type can be time consuming as normally asylum seekers are from countries which are a considerable distance from Ireland. Our European partners have found that a significant proportion of applications are manifestly unfounded. This has led to considerable delay and expense in investigating such claims and has resulted in the investigation of genuine applications being delayed. The UNHCR is familiar with this problem, and the executive committee of the UNHCR Programme adopted a conclusion in 1983 to the effect that national procedures "may usefully include special provision for dealing in an expeditious manner with applications which are considered to be so obviously without foundation as not to merit full examination at every level of the procedure". The Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs of the European Communities, who are responsible for immigration matters, adopted a resolution in 1992 on manifestly unfounded applications for asylum. In keeping with the UNHCR conclusion and the European Union resolution, section 12 provides for a special procedure for manifestly unfounded applications.
If the commissioner forms the opinion that an application is manifestly unfounded, he or she may stop the investigation and advise the applicant why the application is considered unfounded. The applicant will have an opportunity, which includes the facility of an interview, to put forward the case that the application is not manifestly unfounded. If the commissioner remains of the view that the application is manifestly unfounded, he or she will recommend that the applicant should not be granted a declaration. The applicant may, under section 16, appeal against that recommendation to the appeal board. I would point out that the applicant does not have to prove that he or she is a refugee. All that will have to be shown is that the application warrants a full investigation. I might add that section 12 (4) spells out just what constitutes a manifestly unfounded application so that applicants will be in no doubt as to what the law requires.
An application that is not dealt with as manifestly unfounded will be the subject of a full investigation under section 13 where the commissioner will submit a report and make a recommendation to the Minister. If the recommendation is negative, the applicant may appeal to the appeal board. The refugee first makes his initial application that he is a refugee, which will be heard by the Refugee Appeals Commissioner. If he is turned down, he will then have the right to a full appeal board hearing.
Section 15 and the Second Schedule provide for the establishment of the Refugee Appeal Board. It will comprise of a chairperson who will have had at least ten years experience as a practising barrister or solicitor, a representative of the Minister for Justice, a representative of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and two other persons. The appeal board can, under section 16, either agree with a negative recommendation of the commissioner or reverse it. In a case where the commissioner did not fully investigate an applicant or an application because he or she considered it manifestly unfounded, the appeal board can direct the commissioner to carry out a full investigation.
An applicant, when making an appeal, may ask that it be heard orally. This was a major point of discussion in the 1994 Bill. One of the reasons I changed the structure of that Bill was to provide for a commissioner and the office of commissioner. If somebody was manifestly a refugee they could get a quick determination via the commissioner. On the other hand, a borderline case could go to an appeal, have a full oral hearing and have the right to have their case heard at length. For people who are clearly refugees there is effectively a fast track, whereas for those whose status is more questionable, we have a full appeals procedure with an oral hearing which was a major point for many of the agencies and NGOs who provide services to refugees and asylum seekers.
An applicant when making an appeal may ask that it be heard orally. The appeal board may direct any person to attend and produce documents for an oral hearing. It may also permit the applicant to present his or her case through a legal representative. The appeal board hearings will be held in private to protect the identity of applicants and their overall interests.
Section 17 deals with the giving of a declaration that a person is a refugee. The importance of a declaration is that it is a formal recognition that the person named in the declaration is a refugee under the UN Convention and, subject only to national security and public policy considerations, is entitled to the protection of the State. The Minister is obliged by this section to grant a declaration that a person is a refugee where the Refugee Applications Commissioner or the appeal board has recommended that the person should be declared to be a refugee.
Applicants who are refused a declaration are in the position they were in before they made their application. If, before their application was made, they had the right to enter the State then, once their application has been considered and rejected by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the appeal board, their right to be in the State lapses and provision can be made for their removal. I should point out, however, that the removal provision is not absolute: the Bill deals with the situation where, although a person is found not to be a refugee, there may be grounds for allowing him or her to remain in the State. Accordingly, it will be open to the Minister to give that person permission to stay here on humanitarian grounds.
However, where the person has been found to have neither a case for refugee status nor otherwise to have grounds to remain in the State, his or her removal from the State may be necessary. It may interest Senators to know that the UNHCR, as guardian of the 1951 Convention, considers that effective removal procedures for non-refugees at the end of the asylum process is as important as the process itself. I am anxious that the removal provision, no less than any of the other provisions of this Bill, should reflect the highest standards of natural justice and, accordingly, the Bill contains new provisions to ensure that the applicant is given ample notice of a proposed removal.
Subsection (2) deals with the very rare possibility that, even though a person is entitled to be classed as a refugee because of his or her circumstances in the country of origin, the interests of national security or public policy dictate that we cannot extend the normal rights and entitlements which would usually attach to such a person. In these circumstances, the Minister will give a declaration that the person is a refugee, but will also order that the normal entitlements, including the entitlement to remain here, will not apply. For example, somebody who committed war crimes in the former Yugoslavia or somebody who was involved in the genocide in Rwanda might be fleeing either country on well founded fears of persecution and they might be a refugee here and be entitled to be granted such status, but it might not be in our interests, in terms of national security or public policy, to allow such a refugee to remain in this country. That is the point there and is a point which I imagine would arise in very rare and exceptional cases.
This may at first sight seem a strange provision. In fact the Bill as initiated contained a provision that enabled the Minister to refuse a declaration to a person in the interests of national security or public policy even where his or her application was recommended by the commissioner or appeal board.
The UNHCR fully accepts that the convention envisages that a state might expel a refugee on national security or public policy grounds. However it was concerned that a refusal to recognise the refugee status of the person could result in effectively denying that person the international protection which other states might be in a position to offer. Accordingly, I agreed to amend the provision so that a person might be granted a declaration but denied the rights attaching to it on national security or public policy grounds.
It is important that a country like Ireland should be generous in relation to the provisions for reunification of families of refugees. The Bill provides in section 18 that, on application and verification of the family relationship by the commissioner, a close family member of a refugee, such as a spouse, parent or child, may be granted permission to enter and reside in the State. In addition to these relatives, we are providing for other family members where a dependency relationship exists between the refugee and the family member. Family members permitted to reside here will be entitled to rights similar to those which the Bill guarantees to persons granted refugee status.
A fundamental principle in dealing with asylum applications is the need to prevent the disclosure of the identity of an applicant. There are, of course, practical reasons for this. An applicant who has fled from persecution in a particular country may not want his or her whereabouts revealed to the authorities responsible for the persecution nor may the applicant want them to know of the asylum application, particularly if there are family or other connections in that country who could, as a consequence, be targets for persecution. Accordingly, section 19 has been specifically included in the Bill to protect the confidentiality of applications. It does this by requiring all persons dealing with an application, such as the commissioner and the appeal board, to ensure that the identity of applicants is protected. It also provides for measures to prevent the publication of the identity — not the case details — of applicants, in the interests of their privacy and the safety of their home connections.
The NUJ has expressed concern about section 19 of the Bill in relation to freedom of information. Freedom of information about a particular case is not at issue here, what is at issue is the right to, and protection of, privacy of a named individual. An analogous situation might relate to the reporting of certain cases involving sexual offences. The identity of the applicant, not details of the case or situation, cannot be reported.
Section 19 prevents the identification of an asylum seeker in published matter, unless consent is obtained from that asylum seeker and the Minister. This will not stop an applicant speaking to journalists nor will it prevent a journalist writing a story about an applicant by using the time honoured technique of identifying the individual involved as "Joe Bloggs". The section prevents the publication of an applicant's name or of any other matter which might lead to their identification. I regret that the NUJ did not approach me directly about its concerns because I would have explained the matter fully. I spoke to many individual journalists about different aspects of the Bill, none of whom raised this issue with me. I would be happy to meet with representatives of the NUJ at any time to reassure them about their concerns on this matter.
I also explained this section in detail on Committee Stage in the Dáil where I outlined the main reasons for its inclusion. I will summarise the content of my contribution to that debate. Applicants for refugee status are vulnerable people. They may be subjected to pressures to reveal themselves from those more interested, for instance, in obtaining publicity, perhaps for a particular political line related to the home country than in the physical welfare of the person in question or of the family and relatives they left behind. It is important that the refugee application process be clear and transparent to the applicant. We are doing that in this Bill. It is equally important that we provide a safe environment for refugee applicants which respects their privacy and that of family members and other connections back home.
I believe this is important. I believe the NUJ would probably agree with the necessity of protecting the privacy of applicants, particularly as there can be complex family situations where an applicant may hope that family members may be reunited with an asylum seeker in this country when their asylum application has been successful. It might damage the prospects of family members leaving the home country if their names and identities — not the case details — or information about the town or region from where the application originated were fully disclosed and then communicated to the home country of persecution.
Section 20 provides for certain offences. For example, it will be an offence if, after making an application, an applicant misleads the commissioner. The section also provides for more serious offences which are not aimed at applicants but rather at racketeers who try to exploit the asylum procedures by providing false identity documents to support unfounded claims for refugee status. There has been a great deal of concern expressed particularly by NGOs, who deal with and assist asylum seekers, who have made the absolutely valid point that asylum seekers, in order to get out of the country which is persecuting them, often have to carry false documentation or they may have to destroy documentation and take on a false identity.
We understand that and it is not a difficulty. However, once they make an application for asylum and go before the commissioner to have their case examined and go before the appeal board, we want them to come clean about their identity because, at the heart of the application process, we must have the identity of the person making the application. There is no difficulty about somebody having travelled on false documentation or subsequently destroying that documentation provided they are able to explain their identity and why or when the question of false documentation arose and its context. If a successful applicant wants to make a new start in life, they must start with their identity. The hearing and the appeals process are confidential and there will be no disclosure of matters which could be damaging to them or their relatives in their country of origin.
Section 21 deals with the revocation of a declaration and subsection (1) essentially follows Article 1 (c) of the UN Convention which sets out the circumstances where the protection afforded by the convention shall cease to apply. The question of revoking the status of a refugee is unlikely to arise frequently in practice and in fact the Department of Justice has no record of any case in Ireland where refugee status has been revoked. Furthermore, as revocation can have very serious implications for the individual concerned, it is considered appropriate that the process should fall within the competence of the High Court. Accordingly if a person's declaration is revoked, that person can, under section 21 (5), appeal against the decision to the High Court.
Section 22 provides for the implementation of the Dublin Convention which has been signed by the member states of the European Union. It was signed by then Minister for Justice, Deputy Burke, during Ireland's last European Union Presidency. The primary purpose of the Dublin Convention is the protection of the rights of an asylum seeker to have his or her claim determined in accordance with the 1951 UN Convention relating to the status of refugees. We are all aware that there have been cases where asylum seekers have been sent back and forth from one state to another. This is a phenomenon that has become known as "refugees in orbit" and it was precisely to cure that type of situation that the Dublin Convention was drawn up.
The stated aim of the convention is to guarantee that an applicant who makes an asylum claim in one EU member state will have his or her application examined in one of the member states in accordance with the terms of the UN Convention relating to Status of Refugees. In the Dublin Convention, member states specifically reaffirm their commitment to the UN Convention and undertake to co-operate with the UNHCR in its application.
It is important to bear in mind that the convention does not change asylum law or the obligations on member states of the European Union under the UN Convention. What it actually does is set out rules for determining the state responsible for examining an asylum claim. For example, if Ireland has issued a visa to a person who then travels to France and lodges an asylum claim there, Ireland would, under the convention, be responsible for examining the application for asylum. If the situation were reversed and France had issued a visa and the application were lodged in Ireland, then France would be responsible for the examination. Of course, the responsible state must accept responsibility before an applicant can be transferred. We have specifically provided in section 22 that an application cannot be transferred unless the other state has agreed to accept it. Furthermore, while a state is bound to accept an application for which it is responsible, a state is quite free to decide not to transfer an application to another member state and to assume responsibility for examining it.
I am aware that concern has been expressed in some quarters that if, under the Dublin Convention, we were to transfer an application to one of our European partners that country might send the applicant back to his or her country of origin. In that context I would point out that all EU states are parties to the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Indeed, the Dublin Convention's starting point is that it guarantees that the member states honour their obligations under the UN Convention which specifically provides that no contracting state shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. This is called the non-refoulement principle and is in force in all states which are parties to the UN Convention and the Dublin Convention. Senators will have heard me refer to this principle when discussing section 5 of this Bill which will put it into effect in our law.
It will not be open to any member state to return applicants to countries where they may face persecution. However, it is always open to any country, including this State, to return to the country of origin a person who has exhausted the entirety of the asylum process and at the end of the day has been found by that process not to be a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Convention. The Dublin Convention in effect guarantees that an applicant will have the opportunity to exhaust those processes in one of the member states.
Our ratification of the Dublin Convention will enable us to stand shoulder to shoulder with our partners in Europe, many of whom have an exemplary record in dealing with asylum seekers. For example, the Netherlands and Sweden have a history and tradition in relation to the rights of asylum seekers which I do not think we can claim to match. Senators may be interested to know that the numbers of persons seeking asylum in western Europe has increased from about 30,000 per year in the 1970s to about 300,000 at the end of the 1980s and peaked at almost 700,000 in 1992. Germany, for example, in 1992 alone, at the peak of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, received over 430,000 applications for asylum and still has an annual intake in six figures.
It is ironic that the flow of asylum seekers is much more acute in these countries precisely because of this tradition and their humane approach to human rights issues, such as dealing with asylum seekers and refugees. They have had to meet these problems on a scale which is almost beyond our capacity to imagine. Our in-flow of refugees currently amounts to about 200 people per month. It is important to remember that the approach of our European partners is based on practical experience and on a belief that the asylum process must be upheld for those who really need it.
The 1951 Convention on refugees seeks only to protect asylum seekers and refugees. That does not mean that there are not many other people who have very valid reasons, including economic reasons, for seeking to move from one country to another. The 1951 Convention is there specifically to protect people who need asylum because of fear of persecution. It is important that we uphold that convention and that we do not dilute it and the protection it gives to genuine asylum seekers. There may be severe problems in relation to other people who legitimately wish to go from one country to another but that is not the same as saying they are asylum seekers or entitled to refugee status.
It is important to remember that for the Dublin Convention to be effectively implemented following ratification by the original twelve signatories, a number of implementing measures will still have to be adopted. As a general rule for implementation of the convention, member states have agreed that action should be pragmatic and taken on the basis of the principle of goodwill. A network of contacts, for example, needs to be built up which can speed up the allocation of responsibility and make it possible to continue practical co-operation. In addition, the possibility cannot be ruled out that certain concepts might be amenable to a more precise definition. That would have to be done in light of a specific need once the Dublin Convention has come into force. In this respect the Dublin Convention provides for the establishment of a committee made up of representatives of the member states to examine any question of a general nature concerning the application and interpretation of the convention. It is my intention to avail of this provision in the event that any particular difficulties or problems come to light after the entry into force of the convention.
Section 24 deals with what are referred to in the Bill as "programme refugees". These are groups of people who are granted the protection of the State on foot of a Government decision as part of an internationally agreed programme, generally in response to a request from the UNHCR. Such groups are not necessarily limited to persons who would be deemed to be refugees under international law. There are no statutory provisions dealing with programme refugees and the opportunity is being taken in this Bill to clarify the legal status of such persons. For example, at present we have 500 people who came here as programme refugees from Vietnam, most of whom were boat people, and 500 people from the former Yugoslavia, mostly Muslims from different parts of Bosnia. The Bill gives these people, once they are accepted as programme refugees, the same entitlements as a refugee under the 1951 Convention. Although they have not come through the procedure of making an appeal, making an application or having a hearing, they are granted programme refugee status under a decision of the Government, in consultation with the UNHCR, before they arrive here. There are about 1,000 such people in the State.
I now turn to an issue which is not specifically provided for in the Bill. The provision of legal assistance to asylum seekers is seen as an essential feature of the refugee application process. I am pleased to tell the House the Government has agreed that funding for such legal assistance should be provided on an administrative basis to asylum seekers who require assistance in presenting their claims. The details of how such a scheme will operate have not been finalised but I can give the House an indication of the essential features of such a system as I perceive it and of the steps taken so far towards putting such a system in place.
The scheme should be independent. By this I mean that it should be, and should be perceived by its clients, the asylum-seekers, to be acting in their interests alone and not influenced by the State as an institution in the delivery of its service. It should have stability — in other words, whatever means is finally settled on to provide this service should have lasting structures designed to ensure that in years to come legal aid continues to be available, unaffected by changes in personnel or other such variables. As to the scheme's quality, in my view the best guarantee of a good service is the involvement of the UNHCR as part of the management or oversight of the operation. It is important also in this regard that local NGOs with an interest in this area can have a similar involvement. The scheme should also be accountable. Since public moneys are to be involved, it is important that controls are in place to ensure that there is no appropriation of funding to other purposes and that reasonable value is obtained by the taxpayer in providing a quality service. This is not by any means an exhaustive list and it is quite clear that these qualities are not exclusive of each other.
A number of possible models have been considered in the Department and we have had extensive consultations with the UNHCR's London representatives, who cover Ireland as part of their responsibilities. We have also kept in close touch with, among others, the Irish Refugee Council and the Irish Red Cross Society, who have made a number of valuable suggestions. The present position is that we have put a strategy for a possible legal framework for the scheme to the Chief State Solicitor, who has in turn consulted the Attorney General. In light of the complexities of the matter, the Attorney has decided that independent advice be obtained. We are in the process of getting that advice and I hope to be able to keep Senators abreast of developments as they arise.
Other items not dealt with in the Bill include welfare and other assistance for asylum seekers. No such provisions are included because they would only be necessary in the context of restricting the rights of asylum seekers. Such people who arrive in Ireland are treated under the relevant legislation equally with Irish citizens. They receive welfare assistance equal to that received by Irish people of similar means. They are entitled to supplementary welfare assistance and rent allowance and are usually housed in private rented accommodation.
It is important that we recognise the generosity of the Irish response not only to asylum seekers but also in the broader context of refugees abroad and those brought here under Government decision. Under the Irish development aid programme, about £5.5 million last year and a higher sum this year has been allocated for emergency humanitarian assistance, most of which will go to refugees or displaced persons. A further £2.5 million will go to rehabilitation programmes. In addition, this year we have given a grant in excess of £1 million to the UNHCR for its work for refugees and a further £350,000 to the UN Relief and Works Agency to support Palestinian refugees.
There are approximately 1,100 programme refugees admitted to Ireland under the terms of specific Government decisions, of which approximately 550 are Vietnamese and a similar number of Bosnians from the former Yugoslavia. By the end of 1996, we anticipate there will be more than 1,200 programme refugees in Ireland. It is clear from these figures that Ireland has adopted and continues to adopt a generous approach to the problems of persons who are threatened in or forced to leave their countries. This is also the policy that underlies this Bill, which when enacted will ensure that our procedures for dealing with applications for refugee status will meet the highest international standards.
I have mentioned these examples of Irish generosity not so that we can pat ourselves on the back. It is only just and morally right that we, as a relatively well off and peaceful country, should assist people in dire need in other countries. However, I think it is important to highlight this generosity in the interest of an informed and balanced view of the overall part which Ireland plays in assistance for the plight of peoples forced into refugee situations worldwide. Also, as we are commemorating the Irish Famine which caused so many people to leave this country, it is appropriate that we should be discussing refugees and giving them a statutory framework of protection. Many countries were generous to Irish people in their hour of need and it is historically appropriate that we remember that.
The full and generous fulfilment of our international obligations is also reflected in the Refugee Bill, 1995. It incorporates fair and transparent procedures, provides many safeguards for applicants and clearly sets out the rights of an asylum seeker or a refugee in this State. I am of the view that the Bill has benefited from having been debated so exhaustively already and that it represents a synthesis of the views of all areas of the political spectrum. I am convinced it is better legislation for that and I commend it to the House.