This amendment deals with the issue of a travel document.
Refugee Bill, 1995: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 3:
In page 6, between lines 14 and 15, to insert a new subsection as follows:
"(5) A refugee in relation to whom a declaration is in force, may appeal to the High Court against the refusal of the Minister under subsection (2) to issue a travel document and that the Court may, as it thinks proper, on the hearing of the appeal, confirm the decision of the Minister or direct the Minister to issue a travel document.".
—(Senator Mulcahy.)
There has been a detailed discussion of this amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, subsection (1), lines 16 and 17, to delete "in the opinion of the Minister," and substitute "in the opinion of the Appeal Board,".
The amendment intends to transfer the discretionary power from the Minister to the appeal board. The less involved the Minister is in the day to day implementation of this legislation the better. If a Refugee Applications Commissioner and an appeal board are being put in place, it would be duplicative and unnecessary for the Minister to be involved in any of this process.
This section deals with the prohibition of refoulement. This concept, which is enshrined in the 1951 Geneva Convention, makes it clear that, where a person is likely to be in danger from persecution, there shall be a prohibition on returning that person to a country where he or she is likely to be persecuted. If the Minister wants to keep this power to herself, why is this the case?
I presume the commissioner will deal with refugee rights and applications on a full-time basis, even though the Bill does not clearly state this but, as with other commissioners and chairpersons, he or she may work on a part-time basis. The commissioner, who will initially examine applications for refugee status, will be fully conversant and, I hope after a period, expert in the area of refugees and will have a far greater knowledge than any Minister. The Minister deals with a large Department and many issues whereas the commissioner will be solely involved in issues related to refugees. Under the Minister's proposal, the appeal board would have a chairperson and five members, at least two of whom would come from Departments — one from the Department of Justice and one from the Department of Foreign Affairs. The board will have a great deal of expertise on refugee matters. Surely it would be much more appropriate if the commissioner or the board had the final say on whether somebody should be refouled, that is, sent back to his or her original country.
We had a discussion on the concept of ordre public. The Minister of State gallantly promised to come back to us with a new meaning or definition of that phrase. This would take away some of the fear that the Minister might, under the refoulement provisions, use the public order powers if she was prepared to designate the power of refoulement to the commissioner or the appeal board. In essence, these are the reasons I tabled the amendment. It would be more appropriate if the Minister involved herself to the least degree possible in day to day refugee matters. Of course the Minister and the Government can be involved in policy matters, which at all stages will be for the Oireachtas to debate but day to day administration should be left to the commissioner and the board.
I appreciate the Senator's point. However, this section involves a substantial broadening of Irish law, not just for asylum seekers but for all people who enter this country and who may be subject to deportation proceedings. I hope the Senator will see that this section is a considerable advance. It seeks to direct the Minister of the day, who might sign a deportation order, to specifically examine, when applying the non-refoulement principle, the possibility of a person returning to a country where he or she may be persecuted. The appeal board will deal only with refugee asylum seekers whereas this section applies to any person. The Minister, in exercising her powers under this section, must have regard to principles of natural justice as well as to this specific section. Decisions under this section are subject to appeal by the courts, as are all ministerial decisions. I appreciate the sentiment of what the Senator is saying but this section expands our existing law in a positive way and I hope he will accept this.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.