Before we proceed may I ask, on a point of order, that we consider adjourning to allow an opportunity to discuss the controversy of the appointment of judges?
Business of Select Committee.
Let me comment on that very briefly. We started on a very constructive note this morning before the Minister came in but should Deputy Mitchell want to introduce this tone to our proceedings he should be unequivocally and universally condemned for it.
Could I be left to deal with the business now?
I am asking for an adjournment of the meeting to discuss an important matter of public policy now that the Minister has joined us.
The agenda has been agreed already by the Whips and the convenors. I now proceed with——
Is it not in order to ask for an adjournment to consider a matter of urgent public policy now that the Minister is present?
I appeal to the Deputy to be reasonable and let us get on with the business for which——
Chairman, I ask that you put to the committee my proposal that we adjourn the consideration of the business before us to allow a discussion on the current controversy on the appointment of judges, a matter which should be of concern——
It is not covered by the terms of reference and I am not putting it to the meeting. I am proceeding with the business of the meeting.
The whole country is talking about this issue and we cannot discuss it at a parliamentary committee meeting.
I now propose to proceed.
This matter is of urgent concern——
What controversy?
Deputy Lenihan asks what controversy. It is of urgent public concern and we should be allowed to discuss it here. I propose that we adjourn the meeting to discuss this matter.
I welcome the Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, the Minister of State, Deputy Willie O'Dea, and the departmental officials to the meeting today. They are most welcome.
Surely, Chairman, you should give proper consideration to Deputy Gay Mitchell's suggestion.
Let us cop on and cut out the nonsense. The matter is not covered by the terms of reference. I am very clear in my function this morning and I wish other people would be likewise. I propose to deal with the business before me and I am asking for the co-operation of all members. Let members co-operate with the Chairman and get on with the business.
Some opportunity needs to be found to discuss this matter. The whole country is talking about this huge controversy and we should be discussing it at our first meeting since the House adjourned.
Refugee Bill, 1994: Committee Stage.
The business before the committee today is the Committee Stage of the Refugee Bill, 1994. Deputies will be aware that this Bill has been referred to the committee in advance of Second Stage. This is a new procedure. It has been agreed following consultation and agreement with the party Whips to allow brief opening statements. A draft timetable has been circulated which all members have seen. It is proposed to allow introductory statements of 20 minutes from the Minister and the Opposition spokespersons and ten minutes for other members who may wish to speak. The latter time limit is subject, of course, to the number of members wishing to speak. It is proposed to devote today's proceedings to introductory statements and to bring proceedings to a conclusion by 5.30 p.m. at the latest. The committee will then resume its proceedings next week, debating the Bill in the usual way section by section and amendment by amendment. Is this agreed? Agreed.
The main purpose of the Bill is to provide a statutory foundation for the status and rights of persons who are recognised as refugees in this country and the procedures to be applied in deciding on an application for refugee status. To date all of these matters have been dealt with on an administrative basis. We are all aware of the major changes that have taken place in Europe and elsewhere in recent years which have led to a significant decrease in the numbers who have sought recognition as refugees in Ireland and in other countries. The proposals in the Refugee Bill are designed to impact in a significant way on the manner in which we deal with refugees. I am sure all members welcome the proposed legislation and realise the importance of the measures proposed. I am equally sure that they will have their own perspective on the proposals, based on their experience of the issues encompassed by the Bill and on the representations they will have received as public representatives from various interested parties. I am confident that the constructive and open-minded approach which has characterised the committee's work on other Bills and has allowed us to build up a solid and impressive track record of achievement will be adopted and I look forward to a productive and fruitful debate on this Bill. I now invite the Minister to make her opening statement.
I am very pleased that the Refugee Bill, 1994 is before the Select Committee today.
I know Deputies on all sides of the House shared my wish to have the Bill published and debated. I always made it clear that the introduction of legislation on refugees was a personal priority for me and I devoted considerable effort to ensuring that the Bill was drafted without delay. As a result it was possible to present the Bill to the Dáil on 27 June 1994. However, the workload facing the House at that stage was such that it was not possible for the Whips to find time for a debate on the Bill before the summer recess.
To avoid delay and to ensure that the Refugee Bill was dealt with as promptly as possible, the Dáil, on 30 June 1994, referred the Bill to this Select Committee, notwithstanding the fact that the Bill had not been read a Second Time. It is an indication of the determination of the Dáil to carry out its business as efficiently as possible that this novel and experimental approach was agreed to by all parties. As far as I am aware, this is the first time this approach has been tried and I think we will all have to make considerable allowances for that fact.
I should emphasise at the outset that it would not, of course, be appropriate for me to make a detailed speech to the Committee covering all the issues and principles that could be raised in the context of the Bill, as these are matters that can be debated at a later stage. However, I would like to give the background to the Bill and to outline its main provisions before we get down to discussing the individual sections.
Any specific questions that members may have on particular provisions in the Bill can be dealt with when we reach the relevant section.
Ireland acceded to the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees in November 1956 and to the related 1967 Protocol in November 1986. Since our accession we have fulfilled our obligations under both instruments, although the procedures to give effect to those obligations 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 — UNHCR.
Despite the existence of these procedures there has been, in some quarters at least, a perception that these arrangements were not sufficiently transparent or formal to meet today's needs. This perception prompted the Government to include in its Programme for a Partnership Government a commitment that our policy on the treatment of refugees, and asylum seekers, would meet the highest international standards. It was the Government's intention to review the existing arrangements and to do whatever was necessary, including the introduction of legislation, to ensure that we honoured that commitment in the Programme for Government.
I acknowledge Deputy Alan Shatter's contribution in introducing a Private Members' Refugee Protection Bill last year. While the general thrust of this Bill was acceptable to us, the Government view at the time was that we needed to examine in some detail the issues which had not been covered by Deputy Shatter and to consult with various interested parties. I say that not to take from the good work which Deputy Shatter produced but to emphasise our concern that a full and comprehensive examination of this complicated and intricate subject should be undertaken.
In order to ensure that the policy outlined in the Programme for Government would be implemented an interdepartmental committee was established last year to examine all aspects of policy and practice in relation to non-nationals. Because of its importance the committee gave priority to political asylum and produced an interim report which recommended that the existing administrative arrangements be put 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. I accepted those recommendations immediately and they have been incorporated in the Bill before the select committee.
This Bill is concerned with refugees and in that context it is important that we should be clear on what is meant by the word "refugee". The internationally accepted definition of a refugee is set out in the 1951 UN Geneva Convention on the status of refugees, as amended by the 1967 Protocol. This definition is used in section 2 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 or political group, 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.
We have been a party to the Geneva Convention since 1956 and during the years we have granted a number of people refugee status in Ireland. What this has meant is that we have allowed such persons to enter and reside in the country. We have offered them the protection of the State and have issued travel documents to them in accordance with the provisions of Article 28 of the Geneva Convention. We have met our obligations to these refugees under the Geneva Convention but we have continued to do so without any statutory provisions governing their status under Irish law.
The first substantive issue addressed by this Bill is 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 to any persons recognised as refugees in the future.
Articles 3 to 34 of the Geneva Convention set out a number of specific rights which should be afforded to recognised refugees lawfully admitted into a state. Many of the areas in question are addressed in section 3 and the general approach 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. It is only intended to cover issues 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.
We can go into the various rights in question when we discuss section 3 in detail. The most important matter for any refugee is the right to be allowed to reside in a country free from persecution. All other rights for refugees are contingent on that right.
The question of travel documents for refugees is dealt with in section 4. The present practice is to issue refugees with a travel document in the form prescribed by the Geneva Convention which is recognised internationally and which is used in lieu of a national passport. The implementation of this Bill will not lead to any change in this practice but it will provide a statutory basis for the issue of such travel documents.
Article 33 of the Geneva Convention provides that 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 or political group. It goes on to state that a refugee who poses a danger to the security of the country or who has been convicted of a 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 to by section 5. It 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 that 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 or membership of a particular social group. The section is of general application and is not limited to applicants for refugee status. Regardless of section 5, once a person is declared to be a refugee under this Bill he cannot be removed from the State. It is only if that person's status as a refugee has been revoked in accordance with section 18 that the possibility of expulsion arises.
I turn now to the procedures for determining whether a person is entitled to refugee status. The Geneva Convention defines the term "refugee" but the procedures to be adopted to determine who is entitled to be a refugee are left to the discretion of individual states.
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has helpfully prepared a handbook on procedures and criteria for determining refugee status. While the handbook has no legal standing under international law it has been taken into account when drawing up this Bill and I expect the Refugee Applications Board established by this Bill to be guided by it when dealing with applications as is the position under the existing arrangements.
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 Geneva Convention. To this end, the Bill goes to considerable lengths to ensure that all valid applications are thoroughly examined, that every applicant has the opportunity to put forward his or her case and that there is a comprehensive appeals procedure. The primary purpose of the Bill is to safeguard the rights of applicants and to ensure that no valid application is rejected. As Minister for Justice, I have an obligation to ensure that all applicants are fairly treated. I also have a duty to see to it that the safety of Irish citizens is not jeopardised. I have responsibilities regarding the control of non-nationals entering the State and, as a member state of the European Union, we have obligations to the other member states. The Bill has to take all these matters into account.
What is it we wish to achieve by way of these procedures? We must cast our nets far enough to allow into the examination process all categories of persons who could possibly be asylum seekers. We must also be careful that we do not destroy the purpose of the process by casting the nets too wide. This is an important point. The system of political asylum is very important and internationally recognised as an exception to the normal immigration controls. It must be preserved against abuse for those who really need it. This is a principle with which the UNHCR fully concurs and with which few people would argue. The more difficult point is to decide how we can achieve the right balance in a fair and effective way.
A priority must be to ensure that the Bill caters for the genuine refugee fleeing persecution, perhaps with little education and an inbred fear and distrust of all government officials. It would be naive and irresponsible if we did not also recognise that many applicants come from countries where there is no persecution but there is economic hardship. We have every sympathy for such persons but this Bill is not intended to provide a solution to economically based problems. Even such cases may not be clear cut and aspects of them would have to be examined to assess if there are genuine Convention grounds to seek the protection of the State. Such consideration must be done in such a way as not to abuse the asylum process.
Another, more sinister category, covers people who pose a threat to the community. This category would include a hardened criminal fleeing from another country, hoping to explain his or her forged documents or lack of documentation by claiming to be a refugee. It could also include a terrorist, or an agent working on behalf of a totalitarian government, who might try to avail of the procedures to gain access to the country with the aim of engaging in political violence. In addition, there are people who have gained international notoriety and are seeking a country of refuge. We need to have the powers to detain such people and in certain cases to prevent them entering the country.
When looking at the provisions of the Bill and at proposed amendments to it we have to ask ourselves how would the provision in question cope with all types of applicants. The Bill has been framed on the basis that there is a need to deal with all types of applicants. The right balance has been struck by providing an extremely open and fair system for dealing with applications for refugees status which will be subject to a limited number of essential safeguards, many of which can only be used in exceptional circumstances. The Bill has been drafted on the basis that the vast majority of applicants will pose no threat but for the reasons I have set out, a number of provisions have had to be included to safeguard the interests of our citizens.
I turn now to the details of the procedures provided for. The first step for most applicants will arise when they arrive at the Irish immigration controls at one of the airports or ports. The intention behind section 9 is that, if an immigration officer has reason to believe a person might be a refugee, he or she must interview that person and must tell that person that he or she may apply for a declaration regarding his or her status as a refugee. 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 have access to independent advice before they decide whether to apply for a declaration under the Bill. The onus is placed on immigration officers to inquire of a person they believe may be a refugee whether he or she wishes to apply, because a refugee fleeing from a country of persecution could not be expected to be familiar with our law.
The situation is slightly different with persons already in the State. They will apply to the Minister for Justice and then be given an appointment for an interview with an immigration officer.
If a person applies, the application is then referred to the Refugee Applications Board and the UNHCR is notified. Before I go on to elaborate on how the application is to be processed, I should mention what will happen to the applicant while the application is being dealt with. This is governed by section 10 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 is obliged to give the applicant leave to enter the State. The immigration officer is being given no discretion to refuse entry to any person who applies for a declaration. However, under section 10 (11) entry will be refused to persons who are the subject of deportation, prohibition or exclusion orders. These will be orders made in respect of named individuals who are believed to have committed a serious crime or to pose a threat on security or public policy grounds. Such orders are not and will not be made frequently and have to be made by a Minister, not an official.
In general, all applicants will be admitted to the State and will, under section 10 (2), be entitled to remain in the State until an application has been processed. Similarly, a person who is already in the State, whether lawfully or unlawfully, will be allowed to remain until his or her application is 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 subsections (4) to (9) of section 10. Such an applicant will not be permitted to leave the State without the consent of the Minister. If a refugee is seriously seeking asylum in this country, then it follows that he or she should remain here while the application is being processed. We could not tolerate a situation where persons would apply for asylum in Ireland solely to take advantage of the absence of immigration checks to make their way to other member states of the European Union.
Applicants will not be allowed to work or go into business while their applications are being considered. 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. It must be remembered that asylum seekers are applicants for legal status in this country. If they are granted this status, they can work but until such a determination is made it would be inappropriate that they 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 and which could generate hostility towards asylum applicants who generally could be seen as taking jobs from Irish citizens.
As with most non-nationals, applicants will be required to report to local gardai. Depending on the number of applicants, and the strains imposed on a particular local authority, it may be necessary to require specified applicants to reside in particular areas of the country and provision is made in the Bill for this.
Immigration officers will not have any discretion to turn away asylum applicants and in the vast majority of cases 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 10 (8) provides that in particular circumstances listed in the subsection an immigration officer or member of the Garda Síochána may detain the person in question. Safeguards have been incorporated into this section in that every person detained has to be brought before a District Court. If the court is not satisfied that there are grounds for detaining the person the court must, under subsection (9) (d), order that person to be released. If there are grounds for detaining the person the court may order continued detention or release the person subject to certain conditions.
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 only fair but seen to be fair the Bill proposes that applications will be considered by an independent board which will investigate each case and make a recommendation. Section 7 and the First Schedule provide for the establishment of this board, which will be called the Refugee Applications Board. The board will be made up of one officer from the Department of Justice and one from the Department of Foreign Affairs, the two Government Departments with the most expertise in this area, and will have as its chairperson a person who has at least seven years experience as a practising barrister or solicitor. All members of the board are required by the Bill to be independent in the exercise of their functions. The board will also have its own staff to assist it in its investigations. It will, accordingly, 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 deals with the investigation of applications by the board. In the vast majority of cases the first step by the board will be to arrange an interview with the applicant by an authorised officer of the board to discuss the case. While it is possible that no interview with the applicant will be required before the board makes a recommendation that a particular applicant be granted a declaration, I could not envisage any applicant who has not been interviewed by an authorised officer of the board ever receiving a negative recommendation. However, to remove any doubts an amendment is being introduced to ensure that all applicants are interviewed.
In addition to the interview, and their own investigations, the board may seek the assistance of the Department of Foreign Affairs or Justice, or perhaps the UNHCR, in verifying the applicant's claims. The applicant is, of course, free to submit material or representations to support his or her application. Where appropriate, the board may decide to hold an oral hearing. In every case the applicant must be supplied with all 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 is being given every opportunity to present his or her case, and to be aware of any material which might militate against his or her application, the question of adversarial proceedings does not arise. It would be incorrect to envisage that there are two sides in the process. The role of the board is to investigate all applications in an independent and objective manner and this will work in favour of all genuine refugees. The onus is on the board to investigate.
However, investigations of this type can be time-consuming as normally refugees 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 in 1983 adopted a conclusion to the effect that national procedures "may usefully included 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 the European Communities responsible for immigration adopted a resolution in 1992 on manifestly unfounded applications for asylum. In keeping with the UNHCR conclusion, and the EU resolution, section 12 provides for a special procedure for manifestly unfounded applications.
If the board forms the opinion that an application is manifestly unfounded the board may stop its investigation and advise the applicant why they consider the application unfounded. If the board remains of the view that the application is manifestly unfounded they will recommend that the applicant should not be granted a declaration. The applicant then has an opportunity to put forward the case that the application is not manifestly unfounded. The applicant may, under section 15, appeal against that recommendation to the appeal tribunal. I would point out that the applicant does not have to prove that he or she is a refugee. All that has to be shown is that the application warrants a full investigation.
The ordinary type of case is dealt with under section 13 of the Bill where there is a full investigation and the board submits a report and recommendation to the Minister. Again, if the recommendation is negative, the applicant may appeal to the appeals tribunal.
Section 14 and the Second Schedule provide for the establishment of the Refugee Appeal Tribunal. It will comprise one person who will have had at least ten years experience as a practising barrister or solicitor. The appeal tribunal can, under section 15, either agree with a negative recommendation of the board or reverse it. In a case where the board did not fully investigate an application because it considered it manifestly unfounded, the appeal tribunal can direct the board to carry out a full investigation. It is being left up to the appeal tribunal to decide how to conduct its reviews. Depending on the circumstances this may be done by written submissions or by an oral hearing.
To avoid any confusion I should explain that, if the board recommends that a person should not be granted a declaration, the Minister of the day will not make a decision on the application until after the appeal tribunal has had an opportunity to consider any appeal.
Section 16 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 Geneva Convention and is entitled to the protection of the State. In particular the person who is the subject of a declaration will be legally entitled to the rights set out in sections 3 and 4 of the Bill and cannot be removed from the State while the declaration is in force.
Subsection (1) of section 16 provides for the giving of declarations. In particular it requires the Minister to grant a declaration that a person is a refugee where the Refugee Applications Board or the appeal tribunal has recommended that the person should be declared to be a refugee. Under subsection (2) the Minister can only refuse to give a declaration where it is in the interests of national security or "public order", in the sense used in the Geneva Convention.
I should emphasise that the power to refuse a declaration under subsection (2) of section 16 is confined to specific circumstances of national security or public order where the Minister would be so advised by the agencies of the State responsible for such matters. I would expect that it is a power which would be seldom used, if ever. Nevertheless, it has to be included to cover a situation where security information on an applicant, which by its very nature cannot be passed to the Refugee Applications Board, becomes available to the Minister and which indicates that the applicant poses a serious threat to the State. I would be failing in my duty if I were to grant a declaration to such a person.
The norm will be that where the board or appeal tribunal recommends that a person be granted a declaration the Minister of the day will be legally obliged to give the person concerned a declaration.
Subsection (3) of section 16 regularises the position of existing refugees. They will automatically receive all the rights provided for in the Bill without any need for them to make an application. Persons fleeing persecution are often separated from their family. For humanitarian reasons, the Bill in section 16 (4) provides for family reunification. It provides that members of the family of a refugee, as defined in section 1, who has been granted a declaration in Ireland may apply for a declaration, even though those members may not themselves be in fear of persecution and would not otherwise have any entitlement to come and reside in Ireland. Once their applications have been processed, they will be given the status refugees have under the Bill.
The purpose of section 16 is to provide for declarations to be given to refugees who fled to Ireland seeking refuge from persecution. It follows that a person who has been granted the protection of refugee status by another state is no longer in any danger and has no need or right to be granted a declaration under the Bill. Section 16 (5) makes it clear that once a person has been formally granted refugee status by a state party to the Geneva Convention such a person will not be entitled to a declaration under this Bill. Section 16 (6) deals with what happens to a person who has applied for refugee status but is discovered not to be entitled to refugee status.
The approach in the Bill is that applicants who are refused a declaration are being put in the position they were in before they made application. If, before their application was made, they had no right to enter the State then, once their application has been considered and rejected by the Refugee Applications Board and the appeal tribunal, their right to be in the State lapses and provision is made for their removal. However, I accept there will be circumstances where, although a person is found not to be a refugee, there may be other grounds for allowing him or her to remain in the State. Accordingly, I propose to amend section 16 so that, although the applicant's right to remain in the State under section 10 will lapse when the application is refused, the option will be open to the Minister to give that person permission to remain in the State subject to certain conditions.
Section 17 (2) and (3) provides for certain relatively minor offences and the maximum penalty of a fine of £1,000 and or six months imprisonment. Subsection (2) applies only after a formal application is made. It is not an offence under this section to lie to or mislead an immigration officer. Many legitimate refugees have good reason to be suspicious of officials and may have had to lie on numerous occasions to escape persecution. Similarly, it will not be an offence under subsection (3) to be in possession of forged identity documents. However, once a person has been told of his rights, has been given access to legal advice and the UNHCR and has made a formal application for asylum, the applicant is expected to tell the truth and fully co-operate with the investigation by the board. If, after making an application, an applicant deliberately misleads the board that person will commit an offence.
Subsections (4) and (5) deal with more serious offences and 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.
Section 18 deals with revocation of a declaration and subsection (1) essentially follows Article 1 (c) of the Geneva Convention which sets out 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 my Department has no record of any case 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. If a person's declaration is revoked that person can, under section 17 (5), appeal to the High Court which will determine the matter.
Section 19 provides for the implementation of the Dublin Convention signed by all the member states of the European Union. In the past there has been disagreement between states as to which country should process certain applications for asylum often resulting in applicants being moved back and forth between the frontiers of states and producing what have been described as "refugees in orbit". To avoid these problems, the Dublin Convention set out a series of rules determining which EU State is responsible for processing an application in particular circumstances.
For example, if a person arrives in France seeking asylum and it transpires that he or she first entered the territory of the EU through Ireland, or had a valid visa or permission to reside here, then Ireland would be responsible for processing the application. It is proposed to implement the Dublin Convention by orders to be made under section 19 and subsection (2) sets out the types of issues which will be dealt with in such orders. Most of the provisions are technical except that subsection (4) provides an important safeguard. An asylum application cannot be transferred from Ireland until the receiving country has agreed to accept it. This will ensure no applicant is left in limbo if another state refuses to accept its responsibilities under the Convention.
Section 20 makes provision for the photographing or finger-printing of applicants by authorised officers of the board and immigration officers. In many cases, a photograph and fingerprints may be the only methods of verifying the identity of an applicant, or confirming that the person in question is not wanted in connection with criminal charges. One must, for example, guard against asylum applicants lodging multiple claims under different names. This has happened in other countries. An applicant can refuse to allow fingerprinting or a photograph to be taken of him or her but, in such cases, an immigration officer, the board or appeal tribunal or a court can draw inferences from such a refusal.
The Bill also provides that every photograph, including negatives, and every finger and palm print taken, and every copy of such items, will be destroyed after an appropriate period. For example, the period in the case of an applicant who is the subject of a declaration that he or she is a refugee is within one month of such a declaration.
Having regard to developments in the harmonisation of asylum procedures and, in particular, in relation to the Dublin Convention there will be a need for us to exchange information with other member states regarding asylum applicants and section 20 (5) provides for such exchanges.
Section 22 deals with what are referred to in this 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 here to clarify the legal status of such persons.
As Deputies are already aware, I will propose a significant number of amendments most of which are relatively minor and do not affect the general principles of the Bill. We can deal with them as they come before us but at this stage it may be of interest if I explain the general background to the amendments. The UNHCR which is the official United Nations organ responsible for refugees, has raised a number of detailed points regarding the Bill and many of the amendments derive from discussions between my officials and representatives of the UNHCR on these points.
Concern was also expressed in correspondence to me from such organisations as Amnesty International about the absence of certain safeguards. The fact that the board considering applications is completely independent with no vested interest in the outcome of applications is a major safeguard. I am confident that the board will carry out its functions fairly, and efficiently and will decide on a case by case basis what is the best method to discover the truth. However, it is clear from correspondence I have received that certain groups which take an active interest in refugee matters do not believe the Bill goes far enough. I have introduced a number of amendments to meet the concerns expressed by these groups, in particular, an amendment which will ensure that every applicant will be interviewed by an officer of the board.
During the summer, the draftsman reflected on the contents of the Bill and, as a result, a number of drafting improvements is being put forward which I hope will meet with the approval of the committee.
We all are striving to achieve the same result and I do not envisage any major conflict between us on the issues involved. As in the case of other Bills which have been discussed in this committee, I will be open to considering any amendments put forward by other members of the Committee to improve the Bill.
Before I call on Deputy Mitchell, is it agreed that the sos be extended to 2.30 p.m? Agreed.
On a general procedural point, we are not taking the Second Stage of the Bill now although the Minister took considerably longer than the 20 minutes specified — I would not have known the difference between that and a Second Stage speech. My understanding was that the purpose of a Second Stage speech was to make points which would be considered by the Minister and other Members in time for Committee Stage. We are entering straight into Committee Stage here — although we are having statements first — and there is to be a Second Stage debate in the Dail at a later stage. It seems we are putting the cart before the horse and we need to sort ourselves out on that procedural arrangement.
I welcome this Bill. I have tabled a number of amendments and will table others. In general the thrust of the Bill does not raise any unduly controversial points and I hope we will be able to come to an agreement on the amendments I have in mind. It has been widely reported that a Nigerian national who had been living in Ireland for 12 years and demonstrated an undoubted commitment to living here was awoken at 5 a.m. in the prison where he was serving a sentence and told he was being released, was met at the gate of the prison by three Department of Justice officials and told he was being deported to Nigeria via London. At the airport he was, according to the report, dragged along the ground towards the plane. According to the press report, he said: "One officer held me by the throat to prevent me screaming and drawing attention to what was going on". He had no court hearing, no lawyers present and no time to sort out his affairs, to make an appeal or say his good-byes.
If these reports are correct — I have not seen them contradicted anywhere — all this man got after 12 years here was a deportation order. In the past people who wanted to get off planes in County Clare were put back on them. Our history of dealing with refugees, people who are seeking refuge, is not one of which we can always be proud. I hope this Bill goes some way towards addressing that problem.
I know of a Chinese lady whose husband has an Irish passport and who has resided here for a number of years. Some of her children were born here and despite her cultural background, which is very different to ours, all of them have been baptised as Catholics, an indication of her identification with the majority culture here. No attempt has been made to deport her and her residence here is accepted, yet she has not been granted the same status as her husband. She is afraid to visit her loved ones abroad. If she had £1 million to invest she would have been granted an Irish passport a long time ago.
Under section 19 (1) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956 the Minister for Justice may revoke a certificate of naturalisation if he or she is satisfied that the issue of the certificate was procured by fraud, misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent, or concealment of material facts and circumstances. If an independent review of the issue of purchasing passports shows that any misrepresentation was made either in the details supplied by the applicant or the alleged intimate knowledge of the applicant by any of the witnesses it is possible for the Minister to revoke such a certificate of naturalisation. Where there has been misrepresentation the passports should be revoked. In a case involving a well known pet food company the Minister for the Environment vouched for passport applicants based on his intimate knowledge of them. This controversy will not go away and the Minister must state the circumstances in which he made such a claim.
It appears that there are persons with the inside track who have been able to promote citizenship and others who have been able to secure citizenship in exchange for so-called investment. There must be a reasonable suspicion that in some circumstances the sale of passports has been akin to the sale of titles by Lloyd George. This is most damaging to the country's reputation and is a debasement of our sovereignty. It is clear that some of the people who have obtained passports for payment have no affinity with the country, do not know the number of counties, let alone the number of provinces, in the country and probably do not know the name of our national parliament. There is also reason to suspect that some of the investments are, to say the least, suspect. I will continue to pursue this point to contrast the way in which people like this and refugees are dealt with. In future the criterion on which these passports are granted should be published by the Minister and should only be variable with the agreement of the Dail. We also want an appeals procedure whereby people who are not on the inside track can appeal if they feel they have been treated unfairly as compared to other applicants.
I would like to make some general comments on the sections. Amnesty International, Trócaire and The Irish Refugee Council have made submissions to Members of the committee. I understand the existing arrangements are based on administrative procedures worked out with the UNHCR in 1985 but that they have no statutory basis. The Bill arises from the promises made in the Programme for Government, and I am pleased that the Minister is seeking to meet those promises and give a statutory basis to the arrangements. The appeals system proposed in the Bill is particularly welcome as there is no such system at present. Anything which adds to the level of transparency in this area is very welcome and, for that reason, I welcome it. The definitions in the Bill, for example, what is meant by a refugee, are already determined by the UN Convention and its Protocol. I understand no attempt has been made to change these definitions, and if this is the case it makes perfect sense.
The biggest problem I have with the Bill relates to the way the Minister seems to have removed her freedom of action. It must seem strange for an Opposition Deputy to suggest that the Minister should have more freedom of action, but that is a point which needs to be considered by the committee and the Minister. The Bill appears to be well drafted and to cover many of the points dealt with in the earlier Fine Gael Bill. However, in every case the Minister does not give herself any discretion, everything is at its most restrictive. It would make more sense to define things very restrictively and at the same time to allow discretion. The difference between political migrants and economic migrants is difficult to establish and in cases where there is clear evidence of a threat to the life or well-being of the asylum seeker the Minister should allow herself the possibility of being more generous. Also, in determining whether a person is a member of a family, the Minister should allow herself certain discretion in exceptional circumstances. I will raise this matter again.
The forthcoming White Paper on Foreign Policy, the main thrust of which will be different, should contain some statement of Government policy on refugees. The Bill states the law and that document should make some reference to our general policy on the question of refugees. The number of asylum seekers in Ireland is minuscule when compared to that in other European countries. While in 1993 the number here was 91, the average number over the last few years has been between 30 and 50. In contrast, Germany has 500,000 asylum seekers. This may not only be because of our peripheral position but also because of the system is not known internationally.
In general terms, while the Bill is comprehensive it requires amendment. The main difference between this Bill and the one introduced by my party last year is that no time limit is given in this Bill within which a decision must be made and the appeals tribunal will be made up of one person. These will be retrograde steps: there should be a time limit and the tribunal should consist of more than one person. Most dealings with asylum seekers, for example, in regard to travel documents, during and after an investigation are reserved to the Minister. Should some of these powers not be given to the tribunal or its agents?
Consideration should be given to extending the definition of "family" in section 1 which refers only to parents or children under 18 years. If the refugee comes from a country or regime which requires him or her to seek asylum there may be other relatives who need protection. The board, the tribunal and the Minister should have some discretion in such matters. In cases where it is clear that a person who is not covered by the definition in section 1 at present is a close member of the family then the Minister should allow some latitude.
With regard to section 3, will there be a guarantee that adequate resources will be made available to, for example, the health board? In regard to section 7, Amnesty International is of the view that because the Bill allows for the establishment of a refugee applications board on which Department officials will out number the independent lawyer appointed and where the immigration officer conducting the interview with the applicant will also be an employee of the Department of Justice, the system will not be as independent or as impartial as the Minister said it would be. That may not be the case, and the Minister should address that point at some stage. If it is a case of the Minister being involved at one remove there is little point in setting up the board.
In regard to section 8, there should be a report every six months. With so few applicants this will not be an enormous burden. Otherwise, in practice, there will be an 18 month wait for a report. With the level of refugees we have dealt with in the past — the average being 30 to 50 in a particular year — it should not be an enormous task for us to ask for a report every six months.
Under section 9, Amnesty International say that all asylum seekers must at all stages of the procedure be guaranteed the right to legal representation and a competent interpreter. The Bill states that they should be informed of their right to consult a solicitor and "where practicable" an interpreter should be made available. Amnesty International is right, but I can see this providing another beef tribunal type scenario with people clocking up large amounts of money. A way to deal with that might be for the Minister, in consultation with the Minister for Social Welfare, to grant-aid Amnesty International or some social organisation which would meet the need to advise refugees of their rights. Instead of paying unlimited fees to lawyers, the problem might be solved by giving a grant-in-aid to such organisations to do that job.
Section 10 (4) is too draconian. A Kurd may not know that Newry is not in this jurisdiction, but the Bill states that a person who contravenes subsections (4) or (5) "shall be guilty of an offence". This goes back to a point I made earlier. Perhaps the Minister or the tribunal should keep some powers of discretion in section 10 (4).
Section 10 (8) is also too strict. Someone in genuine fear of their life may have to leave their place of origin without correct documentation and this should be recognised. The Inter Departmental Committee recognises it.
Section 12 is too draconian because any decision under this section removes the right of appeal. That needs to be looked at again. On section 13 there should be a time limit within which a decision must be made. This is one of the main complaints about the present system. On section 14, the appeal tribunal should be made up of more than one person. I am proposing that it should be made up of two persons. The comments on documentation which I made on section 10 apply to section 17. Under section 19 Amnesty International believes that the Dublin Convention — the agreement between the EU member states which sets out the criteria as to which State is responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the member states — should be ratified by the Oireachtas. That would be a healthy exercise and perhaps this committee could debate it so that we know exactly what is in it.
I recently experienced one of the concerns raised by Trócaire. The number of times my passport was checked as I travelled from Paris through London to Dublin was quite incredible. These are three EU member states, yet my passport was checked when I handed in my ticket, when I showed my boarding pass and, again, before I got on the plane in each case. It seems that may relate to concerns expressed by Trócaire, referred to by an EU parliament committee, that airlines can be culpable if they do not check documentation. The question of culpability of the airlines needs to be looked at because it makes a mockery of free travel within the European Union if when travelling from Paris through London to Dublin one has to produce one's passport on at least six occasions. There should be no passport control within the European Union. It would appear that the main reason for it is that airlines are fearful of carrying persons who do not have proper documentation and, may, therefore, be liable.
In the time available to me it is not possible to make all the points I want to make. There are a number of concerns which need to be raised. I suggested earlier that the Dublin Convention should be ratified by the Dáil and perhaps even needs to be discussed by this committee. Trócaire state in their briefing document that it can reasonably be argued that the Dublin Convention should not be part of the basis of the Irish legislation at all and that it should certainly not become part of the legislation within the discretionary ministerial powers proposed. The question of the Dublin Convention needs to be centre stage. I would ask the Minister if she could arrange, between now and the next meeting of the committee, for the members of the committee who are available and interested, to receive a briefing on the Dublin Convention so that we would have this to hand when we come to consider Committee Stage of the Bill.
I have proposed a number of detailed amendments some of which have been ruled out of order because they have financial implications. I only got a note this morning telling me some of them were out of order. I hope they do not relate, for example, to the extension of the tribunal from one to two persons. If they do, I would ask the Minister to propose an amendment because I have a particular idea about who should be the vice-chairman of the tribunal. It could be a person from a social organisation appointed by the Minister in consultation with the Minister for Social Welfare and it would not need to be a lawyer. If the tribunal were a two-person tribunal the chairman could be a lawyer of ten years' standing but the vice-chairman could be a person not necessarily from Amnesty International or Trócaire but from the St. Vincent de Paul Society who for instance deal with seamen and have internationally an organisation working in Third World countries and is aware of the problems people face. The second person on the appeals tribunal should be the vice-chairperson appointed by the Minister in consultation with the Minister for Social Welfare as a person from a social organisation who would take a compassionate not just a legal view, of the needs of a refugee who is, after all, completely outside his or her natural home.
There is no big dispute between us as to the general thrust of the Bill. However, in our approach we should ask ourselves how would we feel if one of our family arrived in Africa, South America or North America and was put through the same procedures. What safeguards would we want in place? Whatever those safeguards would be, we should seek to put in this Bill.
Sitting suspended at 1.20 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
We will resume with the introductory statement of the Progressive Democrats Party. I invite Deputy O'Donnell to make her contribution.
Thank you, Chairman. Broadly speaking, the Progressive Democrats warmly welcome this Bill. It is long overdue, as has been admitted by the Minister. As the Minister said, we ratified the Geneva Convention and it has taken 38 years before we, as a State, eventually put into Statute law adequate and proper procedures for the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. The record of the State in the treatment of asylum seekers over the years has been a sorry one. It would be an exercise in collective amnesia if we were not to refer to the fact and express some sorrow and regret for this modern State taking so long to put in place proper procedures to allow for the human rights of asylum seekers. Article 14 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, to which Ireland is a party, enshrines the right to seek and enjoy another country's asylum from persecution and that right is expanded upon in the Geneva Convention and the New York Protocol of 1966, to which we were a signatory. It is a matter of national shame that it is has taken us so long to adhere to our human rights commitments in this field. It is ironic that Ireland, a State that has exported so many emigrants to other shores over the years, has been unwilling to give generously of the warm sanctuary of our shores to people who are seeking asylum here. We have been very vocal in expressing our demands, for example, for our economic emigrants to the United States of which we have thousands every year. I know it is a different concept but, generally speaking, it should not be said that it is very regrettable that the State has been so slow and lethargic in bringing into law adequate procedures.
The definition of "refugee" in section 2, is as enshrined in the Geneva Convention. It has taken us so long to introduce legislation to comply with the Geneva Convention that the definition of "refugee" may well have passed its "best before" date. International lawyers, and many other states, are beginning to reconsider the definition of refugee as laid down in the Geneva Convention because political changes in the world have meant that whole sections of people do not strictly fall within that strict definition.
The Progressive Democrats warmly welcome certain aspects of the Bill. We particularly welcome the fact that, in accordance with our obligations under the Convention, refugees are to be granted the right to work, to receive medical and social welfare benefit and to enjoy certain other important civil rights. This Bill is an implicit recognition that the arbitrary, secret and inscrutable procedures for asylum seekers are insupportable in the present day. Certain key elements of the Bill are deeply flawed and I hope that during this committee procedure on which we are now embarking, the Minister will be generous in accepting amendments from the Opposition put forward in good faith and following consultation with many of the agencies who have knowledge of the practical difficulties of asylum seekers when they arrive here.
The definition of "refugee" is problematical and we will have to look at it and, perhaps, this is an opportunity for us to liaise with our European partners in broadening the definition. It needs to be reviewed and extended to take account of various decisions in other jurisdictions. In an increasingly more brutal world the nature of the refugee problem has changed and mass movements of refugees on an unprecedented scale are becoming more and more common, particularly in the past ten years. The Geneva concept of "refugee" fails to grant protection to many groups of persons who are in flight from what would be generally seen as intolerable conditions and to whom a safe haven ought to be given.
Over the past 15 years European statistics show a dramatic increase in the number of asylum seekers, a sharp decrease in the number of applications accepted but also a sizeable increase in the number of persons whose applications have been rejected. There are reasons for extending asylum to those fleeing gender persecution or persecution by reason of sexual orientation. Other countries grant refugee status to people fleeing from the requirement to partake in armed warfare, in other words, conscientious objectors to military service. There is scope for us to be more generous in regard to the definition of "refugee" in the Bill.
The definition does not include those people who because of war, foreign aggression or generalised violence — for example, in Yugoslavia — or massive violation of human rights in their own country or on other humanitarian grounds seek asylum. They should not be forcibly repatriated. I know that in this Bill there is a category called programme refugees. I ask the Minister to expand on this and indicate how this will be decided — they are de facto refugees. While we have been very generous to some Yugoslavian refugees we need to lighten the criteria applied in the application of the term “programme refugees”. The Council of Europe, of which Ireland is a member, has recommended that member states recognise the needs of de facto refugees. In 1987 the European Parliament stated that the definition of “refugee” needed to be altered. I hope we can be generous in that regard.
I have some problems with the procedures laid down. This matter has been raised by other speakers. I have a particular difficulty which relates to the right to an oral hearing. I am pleased the Minister has tabled an amendment to ensure that every applicant will be interviewed and that a decision will not be made on the basis of documentation or based on the first impressions of the immigration officer. The officer concerned must be familiar with refugee law and asylum procedures. The applicant's entitlement to the services of both a lawyer and an interpreter during an interview must be guaranteed. The Bill does not provide this guarantee — words like "as far as is practicable" are used. The right to legal representation and an interpreter must be copper-fastened.
It is very important that the board and the tribunal be independent. The board will consist of a barrister or a solicitor, an officer of the Minister's Department and an officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs. As the Bill recognises, the board should be independent in the exercise of its functions and be composed of individuals whose status demonstrates without any doubt their independence and competence. It may well be that the board recommended by the Minister will discharge its functions independently and confidently. However, given the record of the Department and the mistrust of it by people working in this field, justice must be seen to be done. Every effort must be made to allay the legitimate fears of the voluntary organisations working in this area to ensure that the State is not over-represented on the board. It is absolutely essential that the Refugee Applications Board, and the sole member of the Refugee Appeal Tribunal, should have expertise in international and human rights law.
Section 12 which deals with manifestly unfounded applications causes some concern. It permits the board to dispense with an investigation in cases in which it considers that the applicant's claim is manifestly unfounded. Subsection (4) includes a long list of applications which are to be regarded as manifestly unfounded. While some of these are fair — known criminals would be excluded — three categories should not be included: those travelling with forged identity documents, those who are untruthful in making their application and those who clearly give insufficient details to substantiate their application. It must be recognised that these people, who are fleeing persecution in their own country, may be traumatised and vulnerable and have spun a web of lies in order to get out of the State. They are confused, tired, exhausted and terrified of all states and state officials. They are intimately acquainted with the gross manifestations of state power. While the State is required to weed out manifestly unfounded applications the list is too broad and the section does not allow for the fact that an applicant may be in a confused state when seeking asylum. As drafted, it has the potential to deny the benefits to a broad section of applicants.
The powers of detention contained in section 10 (8) are too broad; it is inappropriate to put people seeking asylum into prison. It will be remembered that much of the public disquiet surrounding the issue of the treatment of asylum seekers was prompted by the revelation that a young Chinese man, a veteran of Tiananmen Square demonstrations, was imprisoned for seven months in Mountjoy. Of particular concern is the provision which permits the detention of persons who have destroyed their travel documents or who are in possession of forged identity documents. The refugee organisations which have briefed members of the committee inform us that the vast majority of genuine asylum seekers in escaping from their country have to use forged travel documents. While I accept it is appropriate to put criminals when they seek asylum here into prison, where this can be verified, it is inappropriate to put other asylum seekers into prison, particularly Mountjoy where they could be subject to racial abuse. It would be more appropriate to set up a national reception centre for refugees similar to the centre in Cherry Orchard. Asylum seekers and others while awaiting determination of their status in prison complained that they were subjected to physical and racial abuse by other prisoners; some had to be moved to other institutions for their own protection.
The entitlement to legal advice is paramount. While it is welcome that applicants must be informed of their right to consult a solicitor this will be of little avail to those refugees unable to pay for one. Although an applicant is being given the right to consult a solicitor the Bill does not confer an explicit right to be represented by a lawyer at all stages of the application and appeals process. This matter needs to be clarified and if the Minister does not table an amendment I hope she will accept Opposition amendments. The scheme of legal aid should be extended to cover asylum seekers and there should be explicit recognition in the Bill of the right to the legal representation at all stages of the process.
Fair procedures will not make any difference if an applicant cannot make himself or herself understood. The assistance of an interpreter will only be granted where practicable; this is not good enough. There is no point copper-fastening in law procedures which are deficient and which have been heavily criticised by those working in the field; we should be seeking to improve them.
I now turn to the Dublin Convention which was also mentioned by Deputy Mitchell. Section 19 allows the Minister "to make such orders as appear to him or her to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the Dublin Convention."
It is necessary that we understand and that there is a debate in this committee as to the implications of the Dublin Convention. Before the Convention is given effect and ratified by this State, all the asylum laws in EU member states should be harmonised. The difficulty is that there are different recognition rates in different states. Germany, for example, has a very restrictive constitutional attitude to asylum law and each member state has a different view of what constitutes a social group. In the United Kingdom homosexuals do not fall into the category of people fleeing persecution by reason of their sexual orientation and are not considered a group; in other words, they are not given refugee status.
Because the Dublin Convention has the capacity to introduce its terms to Irish law it should be debated at some stage and this is the appropriate forum in which to do that. It would appear that section 19 incorporates and gives effect to the Dublin Convention or allows the Minister to make orders, which is the same as giving effect to the Convention, without an adequate democratic discussion of its implications.
I have read papers which stated that many academics and practitioners in the field of asylum are unhappy about the Dublin Convention. It would appear that it is an agreement whereby the member states of the EU set out the criteria for determining which state is responsible for examining the application for asylum lodged in one of the member states. It envisages that where, under the convention, an asylum seeker has lodged his application in the wrong state, he will be returned to the state specified in the convention. For example, if somebody arrives in Ireland and the Dublin Convention deems that he is in the wrong state and should be sent back to Germany, what guarantee do we have that that person will not be indirectly returned to a place from which he is fleeing under the German interpretation of a refugee? That possible conflict under the terms of the Dublin Convention will have to be clarified in this committee before we can accept section 19.
Some efforts are being made by various EU states to harmonise asylum law but, as usual, this has proven to be very secretive. Asylum law to date has been obsessively secretive and any application for citizenship is secretive also. We have to get over that. There should be nothing more public than asylum law. By its very nature it should be a public business but all states, including our EU partners, are very secretive about how they will harmonise and clarify the definition of refugee status.
With that proviso we welcome this Bill and look forward to a more detailed consideration by way of amendments as we work our way through it. I regret, however, that it has taken the State such a long time to honour our international obligations.
We are discussing this Bill at a time when the whole issue of who may live in this country and who may be citizens is a matter of some public discussion. We have a two track system in this State for dealing with the question of who may live here and who may be citizens. People who put money on the table and claim to invest in some enterprise can obtain citizenship in a remarkably fast time, sometimes in cases where it does not appear that the normal criteria regarding residence and so on are properly examined. A number of examples have come into the public domain in recent months.
We have a contrasting system for dealing with poor people fleeing from repressive regimes who are trying to obtain asylum. The way in which this State treats wealthy people seeking citizenship and poor people seeking either citizenship or asylum is disgraceful.
I welcome the fact that this Bill gives us an opportunity to debate the whole question of the way in which the State deals with asylum seekers and gives the State the opportunity of putting on a statutory basis for the first time its obligations under the Geneva Convention. However, the Bill is very disappointing. It certainly does not live up to the high standards that were claimed for it in the Programme for Government or in the Minister's self-congratulatory speech this morning. The relevant section in the Programme for Government states: "Our policy towards treatment of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants will meet the highest international standards." It goes on to state that procedures will be introduced to guarantee rights of hearing, appeal, access to legal advice and access to the courts.
Far from meeting the highest international standards, the Bill is minimalist legislation. The definition of "refugee" is confined to the definition which was adopted over 40 years ago. It requires some re-examination and extension at this stage. The procedure proposed in the Bill for hearing asylum claims is not independent, as was claimed this morning by the Minister for Justice. It is a procedure whereby there will be a three person body, two of whom will be representatives of Government Departments which have a vested interest in the whole area. The Department of Justice does not have a praiseworthy reputation in its dealing with this area and the Department of Foreign Affairs has its own considerations which will have to be brought to bear when individual cases are being examined.
Provision is made in the Bill for rights of hearings, appeal and access to legal advice but the question of cost, access to legal aid and so on is not guaranteed in this legislation, as claimed in the Programme for Government. The appeals procedure amounts to a one member tribunal. The Government seems to be getting particularly fond of sole member tribunals. In my view a sole member tribunal is not an adequate way of dealing with this particular issue.
The Deputy was fond of it himself——
The Minister of State was not too fond of the outcome.
We were very happy with the outcome.
Did the Minister read the report?
It is the Deputy's party which continues to talk about it. I read it. The Deputy is not the only person here who read reports.
Deputy Gilmore should address the issue before us.
It is over and done with.
I think the Minister of State is out of order and the Chair should deal with him.
The Deputy provoked me.
This is not a Cabinet meeting.
Rumour has it that the Taoiseach has spent so long in Australia at this stage that he is seeking asylum there.
The approach to the family is exceptionally restrictive and is possibly unconstitutional. The Bill is riddled with provisions which can be used to deny an asylum seeker refuge here. The Bill is a back door method for giving legislative effect to the Dublin Convention which had not been debated prior to this country entering into commitments in relation to it. Although ostensibly the purpose of the Bill is to give statutory effect to this country's obligations in relation to refugees, what we are getting is legislation which will enable Ireland to participate in arrangements that are being made at European Union level designed not so much to protect the interests of refugees as to shore up the frontiers of the European Union against third countries getting into the European Union. I intend to deal with that issue in greater detail later. The amendments I will be tabling will address these issues.
The 1951 definition of refugee needs to be updated to take account of areas of persecution relating to sexual orientation, trade union membership and activity and people who may be conscientious objectors to military activity. We have here a paper on the need for supplementary refugee definitions. Deputy O'Donnell dealt at some length with the question of de facto refugees and by and large I would agree with what she had to say.
I do not know if this is the first time we have attempted to define what constitutes a family but it makes interesting reading. In this Bill the family is now confined to the spouse, if the marriage is still subsisting — this is the first time we have acknowledged the possibility of marital breakdown in Irish law — the parent, if the applicant is under 18 years of age and an unmarried child. That fails to take account of the situation of families who may be exposed to risk in cases where a refugee is seeking asylum here. It fails to take account of a family where there are two children aged 19 and 17: the 19 year-old applicant is not admitted whereas the 17 year-old is admitted. What will happen in a case where — as happens in a number of countries and cultures — people are married off at 12, 13 or 14 years of age? Under the provisions of this Bill a child who is married under 18 years of age does not have an automatic right to citizenship. That issue needs to be examined.
I do not accept — as claimed by the Minister — that refugees are being given the same rights in the State as the rest of us. Under the provisions of section 3, the right of a refugee to become involved in an organisation here is confined to what are called non-political organisations. Does this mean that a refugee from a repressive country cannot join a solidarity committee in relation to that country? Does it mean that a refugee from East Timor cannot become a member of the East Timor solidarity committee? Does it mean that a refugee cannot have an association with a political party here? Does it mean that a refugee cannot become a member of the GAA if the GAA's views in relation to who may become members, are considered to be political?
Section 10 allows for the detention of an applicant on the grounds that an applicant has not established his or her true identity, that the applicant has destroyed identity papers or travel documents or is in possession of forged documents. Most refugees — the Minister acknowledged this — who turn up here are likely to be in possession of forged documents, and, probably, will be reluctant to establish their true identity initially. Under the provisions of this Bill they would be exposed to detention and section 10 (9) allows for the continuing detention of such persons for repeated periods of 21 days.
Section 11 effectively suspends the Data Protection Act as it would apply to asylum seekers. The three member board for hearing cases — as I have already stated — will be weighted in favour of Government Departments. There is no provision for people who would have an expertise in this area. I propose — although I note, Chairman, you have decided to rule it out of order — a procedure whereby representatives of appropriate non-governmental organisations, such as Amnesty International, would have membership of such a board in order to provide that kind of balance.
Section 12 which deals with manifestly unfounded applications is open to abuse. It is a mechanism for refusing refugee status and it lists several grounds on which refugee status can be refused — all or most of which are wide open to abuse — such as travelling under a false identity, making false statements in relation to an application, destruction of identity documents and so on. It is fair to assume that a person who turns up at the frontiers of this State seeking asylum is likely to be wary of dealing with officialdom and is likely to be travelling under a false name and may not, for very good reasons, want to disclose his or her identity. If they are aware of the provisions of the Dublin Convention and wonder how they will be treated or whether their application will be processed by the State they may want to conceal their identity. It may be a person who decides for their own good reasons, for example, to avoid the possibility of being attacked or being found or they are fearful of being followed to this country, to conceal their identity. Several mechanisms in this section are designed to deny refugee status.
The section is wide open to abuse. Paragraph (j) states:
Where the applicant is a national of or has a right of residence in a country where there is no evidence of persecution,
Who establishes where there is no evidence of persecution? One of the great stories of the Second World War and the Nazi period prior to it was the length of time it took to establish that there was persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. There are many examples of statements of no evidence of persecution when it can be manifestly shown that the opposite is the case. Who defines whether there is no evidence of persecution? We have supplied to us a very comprehensive document from Trócaire which draws our attention to the need to examine this Bill in the context of developments at European Union level. That document draws our attention to the fact that many of the terms used in this Bill have very specific meaning in the context of commitments being entered into at European Union level.
With regard to the provision where it states that where the applicant is a national of or has a right of residence in a country where there is no evidence of persecution, who establishes where there is no evidence of persecution? One of the great stories of the Second World War and the Nazi period prior to it was the length of time it took to establish that there was persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. There are many examples of where it is stated that there is no evidence of persecution where it can be manifestly shown that there is. Who defines whether there is no evidence of persecution. It is here that we have to look at this issue in the context of what is happening at European Union level. We have supplied to us a very comprehensive document from Trócaire which draws our attention to the need for us to examine this Bill in the context of developments at European Union level. That document draws our attention to the fact that many of the terms which are used in this Bill have very specific needs in the context of commitments which are being entered into at European Union level. With regard to the definition of evidence of persecution, lists of countries where it is claimed that there is no evidence of persecution are apparently being drawn up at European Union level. We need to take that dimension on board also.
Deputies Mitchell and O'Donnell referred to the Dublin Convention. I agree with Deputy O'Donnell that the Bill seems to give legislative effect to the Dublin Convention via the back door. We need a great deal more discussion and debate about the implications of the Dublin Convention.
Members of the committee have been circulated with the submissions and observations of a range of bodies — Amnesty International, the Irish Council for Refugees, Rescue Trust and Trocaire. The Minister referred to discussions which took place between her officials and the UNHCR and professed herself to be satisfied with the outcome but we are not entirely sure whether the UNHCR is satisfied with the outcome or whether the amendments she proposes to the Bill meet the concerns expressed by that organisation.
I would like those bodies to give their views directly to this committee. We might usefully carry out the business of this committee by departing from the traditional way in which Bills have been dealt with in the House. It would be helpful at this stage if non-governmental organisations and the UNHCR outlined directly to the committee any concerns they have about this Bill. Before dealing with it on a section by section basis, the committee should invite the bodies that have made submissions to attend at the committee and enter into a dialogue with us and the Minister on their concerns about this Bill so that we can have a full discussion. There is no reason to be hidebound by the procedure for dealing with the Bills, whereby Members of the Dáil proceed with the discussions and the various interests groups sit in the public gallery and write submissions to us, and never the twain shall meet. This is an appropriate opportunity to invite these bodies to attend a meeting of the committee to discuss their concerns. This Bill is being dealt with differently in that Committee Stage is being taken before Second Stage. We can go a step further and invite those bodies to attend a meeting so that we can have a discussion with them.
I would support such an approach.
It is fine to have legislation on refugees but the Government's commitment in this area would be better assessed in the context of how the Department and the Government deal with refugees in practice. For example, there is the disgraceful case of the Libyan national, Marui AL Gutrani, who has been living here since 1982, who has been seeking asylum here and who is afraid to go back to Libya for very good reasons. On 2 July 1992 the Supreme Court decided that effectively he was not a refugee. The Minister for Justice is now interpreting that decision as meaning she has to deport him, which, of course, is not the case. The Supreme Court did not issue any direction to the Minister for Justice to deport Mr. Gutrani.
All of us would like to measure the Government's commitment to dealing with refugees and asylum seekers in a humane way, and I would like to know at this stage whether the Government intends to deport Mr. Gutrani. Already on a number of occasions, Mr. Gutrani has been seized from where he was living in the middle of the night and frog marched to Dublin Airport where attempts were made to forcibly put him on a plane to Tripoli. Those who are concerned about his fate would like an assurance that this will not happen again and it is not intended to proceed with his deportation.
I welcome the fact that at long last we have a Refugee Bill but I am disappointed with its content. I hope to have the opportunity as we go through it section by section of proposing a number of amendments which deal in the main with the points I have raised. I formally propose that before we proceed with the section by section examination of the Bill we should extend an invitation to the bodies who have made submissions and who have an interest in this area to attend the committee and to exchange their views with us and the Minister.
I, too, welcome this Bill which has been awaited for some time. I represent a constituency where this problem is obviously to the fore. Due to the increasing numbers of people coming to my clinics for assistance I know this problem is getting bigger and this legislation is urgently needed. The Bill adopts an open and transparent approach to this issue. Up to now we, as a nation have complied with our obligations under the Geneva Convention and now matters are being put on a statutory footing. I very much welcome the Minister's decision to give special priority to setting up the board and the appeals system. The absence of such structures has been a source of worry for many of those who have been involved with refugees. The need for personal interviews — this idea was put forward by Amnesty and other organisations — rather than relying solely on documentation has been recognised as necessary by the Minister. I am a little worried — and perhaps this can be clarified further at a later stage — about the provisions for the interpreter and solicitor. I would like that provision to be tightened up so that individuals can avail of the service without weakening their position.
The Minister has recognised the fear felt by refugees when dealing with Government officials. This has been raised by Amnesty, and the sensitive approach adopted by the Minister is very welcome. She said that under section 17 (2) it will not be an offence to lie or mislead and immigration officer or to be in possession of forged documents. It will only be an offence after the refugee has had an opportunity to talk to his or her legal adviser. It may not be relevant to this Bill but consideration should be given to the possibility of increasing the assistance available for refugees in terms of housing and finance. While a certain amount of help is available for them immediately, further assistance should be provided.
Section 12 raises some concerns. Special procedures for manifestly unfounded applications are in existence here but further explanation is needed on this section, although I recognise that it is in keeping with the UNHCR and indeed the EC resolution. The Minister has acknowledged that amendments are needed and has initiated a number herself. One of those to section 16 deals with a person who is found not to be a refugee. This amendment is one we could all support.
I am not a lawyer and therefore I do not fully understand all the legal arguments that have been put forward with regard to section 19 and the question of refoulement. The Minister recognises that there has been a problem and the Bill ensures that no applicant will be left in limbo. That is something that we could perhaps have further explanation on at a later date.
I commend the Minister for bringing this legislation before the committee. I look forward to contributing in the Dáil at a later date. The Department and the Minister have faced up to this issue. They have not gone ahead with legislation based on their own views alone but have been very open to amendments put forward by such organisations as Amnesty International and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. This should be appreciated by all who are dealing with this very difficult and sensitive problem.
I welcome the Bill and I am justified in regretting that Alan Shatter's Bill of last year was not accepted and amended if necessary. It might have saved many people unnecessary hardship.
Earlier today one of the members expressed the hope this Bill would not bring in a flood of refugees to this country. I would like to express a differing view; with Ireland's history it should be very hard for us not to take a lenient view towards refugees. The way some refugees are being treated is indefensible. A few years ago when I was about to enjoy a sporting occasion on a Sunday, I got an urgent phone call from a constituent whose sister-in-law from the Philippines was turned back. I presumed it was here in Ireland that she was turned back as she was travelling to Carlow. I subsequently discovered that it was at London Airport, even though she was travelling to Dublin Airport. When I contacted the Department of Foreign Affairs and met a rather unhelpful individual who, I am sure, would have been much nastier to her had he been talking to her, he explained that Ireland depended on London to turn back refugees who were on their way here. I find it very strange that as an independent Republic we allow London to handle people coming our way. The excuse was the danger that if they came to Dublin, they might get back to England across the Irish Sea on top of a whale. I would like the Minister would clarify this. Is it the position that London decides who will be stopped on their way to Dublin? It is something that I find strange and think should not happen.
We have a history of exporting refugees. We could be regarded as an exporter of refugees of different sorts, not people who were intimidated. Consider the New Irelanders of 1848, making their way to Tasmania and John Mitchell writing his story. Many of these people were very successful later in life because they were allowed into civilisation. All of them were received very well. Look at all our people who have gone to the States, many of them illegally until the issuing of the Morrison visas. Still we seem to be the country that has taken the tough line and thrown people into jail. Even under the present Bill, one can spend 21 days in jail. There should be some other place besides jail for refugees. I would like to broaden the definition of refugees. The famine people went in boats across the Atlantic and were herded like cattle at Ellis Island. Some of them were sent back and separated from their families because they were not healthy enough. The hardship suffered by our ancestors should soften our tough line on refugees. People are not mad enough to rush to this country looking for work.
We will not be flooded with refugees coming in to take over factories that are almost closing down. Unless they are complete "head bangers" altogether they will not be coming to Ireland looking for work. Those who want to get away for genuine reasons should be treated extremely gently. If we imagine some person from the Gaeltacht arriving in China as a refugee we will realise the importance of using an interpreter in every situation. How could somebody who does not understand the language, explain his or her case? I would like to see every refugee coming to Ireland treated with a céad míle fáilte. If want to create an image of a caring society we should show some gratitude for what has happened to us in the past and make sure that those who come here under difficult circumstances are treated in a kind way. That does not mean we should allow criminals in.
I am fascinated by the provision relating to the appeal tribunal. A tribunal always suggests to me a group of people listening to the evidence. To find that there is only one person comprising the tribunal fascinates me. The amendment by my colleague, Deputy Gay Mitchell, asking the Minister to appoint a second member in consultation with the Minister for Social Welfare is a good one. It backs up my line of thinking that there should be kindness and charity involved in this and somebody from the social welfare side should sit on the tribunal to hear what is going on. Amnesty International have a reasonably balanced view on all these things.
We will deal with the question of forged documents later on. I can understand why people might have forged documents. It is important that we take all these things into consideration and that we make sure we have an interpreter on all occasions. Kindness and charity and an appreciation of the kind of treatment we got in the past should sway our judgment in the way we deal with refugees.
I want to make a few points regarding the Bill, which I welcome. I congratulate the Minister of State on his excellent input to it. I am quite sure that when the Bill is finally passed it will be of much benefit to the refugees that seek admission to our country.
I have been asked to raise particular matters with the Minister with a view to having them included if they have not already been included in the proposed Bill.
All applicants should have an oral hearing with an independent body before they meet the new board. It would not be fair to many refugees if they had to go automatically in front of the board prior to an oral hearing with an independent body. An oral hearing with an independent body would help the individual to present the case much better. As already mentioned language problems, background, customs and distress may mean they will not be able to present their case in a manner which will do them credit. It is important that some type of independent body is set up before any refugee is brought to this board.
It has been suggested to me that all applicants must be given the right to legal representation and a competent interpreter to promote their case. The Bill states that "it shall where necessary be provided". That is limited and I am quite sure members have already stated this. Some refugees have no money and may not be able to avail of any legal advice. That point has been made.
There is concern about the composition of this board and a great deal of thought will have to be given to it so that it will be of benefit to all concerned. The membership of the board should be broadly based and well balanced and not be specifically customs officers. Perhaps officials from the Department of Justice would participate as well as members of groups interested in the wellbeing of refugees. I ask the Minister to take that point on board before final decisions are made.
The section that deals with manifestly unfounded applications is not broad enough. Many people are concerned that applicants can be sent back automatically because of the wording in the Bill. Some applicants feel they must travel with false documents in order to keep their identity secret. People are concerned that this alone might be a reason they could be automatically sent back. Another point is that they might have good reason for not informing the authorities of changes of address as that might nullify their application.
I have been asked to refer these points to the Minister. I hope the officials will take note of them and try to incorporate some of them in the Bill.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Refugee Bill. People who are particularly interested in this area have sought change for some time. Having examined this Bill, I have to conclude that it is just a matter of putting legislative procedures on current practice.
There are some omissions that worry me. Let us take what happens on the ground step by step. The difficulties people experienced at Shannon airport arose because they were not given the opportunity to see a solicitor or a third party was not available or was not made aware that they had made application for refugee status. There must be a legislative requirement that the interviewing officer notify a third party that an application had been received. A representative of the refugee council or Amnesty International should be informed and if those two groups are not acceptable, the Red Cross should be informed. When applicants arrived at airports without official documents or indeed when their documents were found to be grossly out of order — some people have been seen to flush these down the toilet — they were without trial put into jail in Limerick and some of them were left there for weeks. I visited some of them and found them totally disorientated. They did not know what they were saying and the interviewing officer could not make any valid assessment. I am glad to note Ministers in the Department of Justice have relented and that practice has been stopped for some time. I am also glad that very humane arrangements have been made with the Mid-Western Health Board and the Red Cross to look after refugees and their health and safety has been of prime importance. I compliment the voluntary bodies in this area, the Red Cross, Amnesty International and the Refugee Council who have spent some time looking after applicants. However, there is a huge gap in that by and large refugees do not know any English but want to settle in some English speaking country. They would need to be taught English. There does not seem to be any provision in this Bill for a programme which might help refugees in this area.
We should be thankful for small mercies as there has been a big change from what was going on in the late 80s and early 90s. The section in the Department which deals with aliens is very small. If we are to do what Deputy Browne wants this section — I have said this before when Deputy Shatter introduced his Bill — should be expanded. I do not see any reference to its responsibilities. When the Shannon region experienced grave problems with refugees the officials in that section were very busy with the Dublin Convention. They found themselves caught between two stools and civil servants had to take a great deal of flak at that time about what was going on.
People claimed that they had no understanding of the refugee problem but their enormous workload prevented them gaining total knowledge of the matter. There is an urgent need to explain the Dublin Convention to the committee, as requested by Deputy Mitchell. As I understand it, most of the voluntary bodies are opposed to large sections of it. There is a need to review the position.
Prior to the introduction of the Dublin Convention western countries, West Germany in particular, responded sympathetically to all applicants from Iron Curtain countries. When faced with the large scale movement of people, however, the shutter went up. We are trying to tailor our legislation to meet the Dublin Convention which is not a liberal policy with regard to the treatment of refugees. As Deputy Browne said, the appeal should be for a liberal regime. My party took the lead by introducing Deputy Shatter's Bill and we have established our bona fides. Regardless of what Protocols or regulations are introduced they should take account of our bad experiences at airports and sea ports. It should be possible to accept all the amendments to the Bill. The Minister could give a lead, as a gesture to The Irish Refugee Council and Amnesty International, by undertaking to notify them when an application is made at port of entry. I have a particular interest in this and will continue to pursue these matters.
I was one of the Government Deputies who contributed to the debate on the Private Members' Bill last year and felt that we might have taken a different view at the time. In that context I am happy to welcome this Bill and congratulate the Minister on the work done in the meantime, both by her Department and other Departments. I am happy with its contents although I have some reservations.
We should look upon this matter as a human and civil rights issue; a judicial procedure rather than a political one. In that context I am pleased that the Minister's discretion to refuse or confer refugee status is limited and marks the end point of what is essentially a judicial procedure. That is the way it should be. The decision to establish this procedure is political and one which we must take having regard to our international obligations. I have no problem, in principle, with making Ireland a haven for people seeking political asylum. This is unlikely to happen because of our peripheral location; we will not have large numbers of people arriving in Shannon seeking asylum, there are many other more accessible locations. If, by putting proper procedures in place we might encourage people to arrive in Shannon or elsewhere, I have no problem, in principle, with that.
I wish to comment briefly on a number of provisions in the Bill. I have a particular interest in the provision of legal aid and an interpreter for people who might seek them. The provisions in the Bill are circumspect and it is still possible that a person will be denied those services. I accept the bona fides of the Minister when she says that this is not the intention but the fact is that people have been bundled on to planes without being provided with an interpreter or told they have a right to consult a solicitor. This provision could be hollow in the sense that in many cases the person concerned cannot afford to pay for a solicitor and it is not always possible to find one who will act on their behalf voluntarily. While it is not practical to provide legal aid as of right to each person who applies for it we should put in place some mechanism whereby people can gain access to a solicitor.
Deputy Mitchell's proposal is a positive one, that we should give grant aid to a voluntary organisation such as the Red Cross or Amnesty International which would take it upon themselves to ensure that this was done. A fixed amount could be provided from the budget of the Minister for Equality and Law Reform for that purpose. The commitment to allow people access to a solicitor will ring hollow if we do not supplement it with a provision which makes it possible for them to do so.
I wish to take up the point made by Deputy Carey about the Mid-Western Health Board. It is right that it should be given the resources to ensure that it will be able to provide accommodation for those who have been detained or who are obliged to remain in County Clare.
In circumstances where it is not possible to find an interpreter who can speak a particular dialect of Manchurian or in circumstances where it is believed that the person concerned can speak English, French or German a third party who can gain their trust should be brought into the picture to unravel the circumstances quickly.
One of the difficulties with the current procedure is that it can take a long time to process an application. As a result a person can find themselves in limbo where they cannot work and provide for their family if they are also resident here. This is not acceptable. While I take the Minister's point that we cannot give people whose status has not been determined work permits the least we should do is ensure that applications are processed expeditiously. If possible, there should be a time limit.
In common with other Members I am concerned about the make up of the Refugee Appeal Tribunal. One person should not be given this responsibility. I would prefer to see two or three people being appointed, not necessarily practising lawyers, to do this work.
I am also concerned about section 12 which deals with manifestly unfounded applications. It seems to allow a decision to be made too easily that an application is unfounded. I ask the Minister to tighten up the provision.
When I was listening to Deputy Mitchell this morning the point struck me — it is slightly extraneous to the Bill but is worth making nonetheless — that we have not subscribed to the Schengen Convention. I would be interested to hear the official reasons. There is a suspicion abroad that we have not subscribed to the convention because our friends across the water do not want us to do so and we are effectively implementing their emigration legislation rather than our own. I would like to subscribe to the Schengen Convention and all that that necessarily entails.
I thank all the contributors to what I regard as a very worthwhile debate.
I would like to deal with Deputy Gilmore's proposal that we issue an invitation to attend the committee to the groups who have made submissions. While this is an excellent idea, unfortunately we cannot take it on board. I hope this matter will be addressed at our AGM and that those who will make the decisions in relation to adjustments to the terms of reference will bear it in mind.
I propose that the next meeting of the committee to consider the Refugee Bill, 1994, will be on Wednesday, 5 October, and that we have a private session at 11.30 a.m. so that members can be briefed by the Minister's official on the Dublin Convention. It came across very clear today that members are dissatisfied about the provisions in regard to the Dublin Convention and they can raise any questions they have during the briefing session. We will then adjourn until 2.30 p.m. when we will debate the Bill in committee in the normal manner. Is that agreed?
Are you proposing that we have a briefing session from 11.30 a.m. to lunchtime?
Yes. Deputy Gilmore, in your absence I made the point that although your suggestion to invite the groups who have made submissions to attend the committee is excellent, unfortunately I am unable to take it on board for the reasons I outlined this morning. It is proposed that we meet at 11.30 a.m. next Wednesday to discuss the Dublin Convention and resume the Committee Stage debate at 2.30 p.m. that afternoon.
My apologies for not being here when you gave your ruling — I had not anticipated your dealing with the matter so soon. I will pursue this matter when we meet next week. I do not see anything in our terms of reference which precludes us issuing invitations to representatives of three organisations.
It is open to any Deputy or party to meet with those organisations.
That is not the point.
We are dealing with the same matter we dealt with earlier this morning.
No.
I understand the frustrations felt by members but we are bound by the terms of reference of the committee. Unfortunately, we cannot issue invitations to people.
With respect, it is a different matter from that with which we dealt this morning. As I understand it, we dealt this morning with a proposal that we would have a discussion on something other than the Committee Stage of legislation. The committee is entitled to deal with the Committee Stages of Bills and the way we do that is a matter for us. There is nothing in the terms of reference of this committee that prohibits the committee from inviting outside bodies to meet with us as a committee so that they can give us their views and we can exchange opinions with them. This morning we dealt with a proposal in regard to the drugs question, the possibility of issuing an invitation to the Garda Commissioner, etc. There is nothing to stop us from having a discussion of the type I am suggesting.
I do not want to make your life any more difficult, Chairman, but I agree with Deputy Gilmore. Although our terms of reference specifically say that we must only debate the Committee Stages of Bills as referred to us by the House, they do not set out how we should do that. So far as I recall, there is nothing in them which specifically precludes us from inviting people to give us evidence in that context. You might consult the Government Whip about this matter during the week. I do not believe that Deputy Gilmore's proposal is outside the terms of reference as they currently stand.
This is not the first occasion this issue has arisen. I gave this morning's proposal as an example, but this problem has arisen previously. Clear guidelines are laid down on inviting witnesses or persons to attend the committee. We are governed by our terms of reference and, unfortunately, we cannot issue such invitations. I agree with the Deputy but we cannot take his proposal on board. I take Deputy McDowell's point and will clarify the matter between now and next week's meeting. However, the terms of reference are laid down for the committee, and that is the position.
I do not want to prolong the debate and if you do as Deputy McDowell has suggested and get some further advice between now and the next meeting I will certainly go along with that.
I want to draw your attention to two points. First, the terms of reference do not preclude inviting persons to appear before the committee. Second, they provide for the committee to deal with the Committee Stages of Bills. The terms of reference do not set down in the kind of restricted way that you seem to be interpreting them the manner in which the committee should deal with the Committee Stages of Bills. We might as well discuss the Committee Stages of Bills in the House if we are not going to deal with them in a more flexible way, which I understand the committees were set up to do. One way of doing this — this Bill gives us an ideal opportunity — is to invite those bodies who have an interest in this area to make their case to us. We are already doing something which departs very fundamentally from the traditional way in which Bills have been dealt with in the House, that is, we are dealing with the Committee Stage of a Bill before Second Stage. This is being done to facilitate the Government in getting legislation through the House. Members of the committee should extend that flexibility and issue an invitation to those bodies which have a specialist knowledge in this area and which have made written submissions in which they raise a number of fundamental questions in relation to the Bill. I agree that it is open to any Deputy to discuss on a bilateral basis with the bodies concerned the issues they have raised, but it would help and inform our debate if we were to have those bodies present at the committee so that the points and comments they have made could be debated.
Unfortunately I have to disagree with you. We are bound by our terms of reference. I have had requests from people to attend meetings of the committee — this is not the first occasion — but it is not possible to do so. In the past organisations have written to us requesting an invitation to attend a meeting but unfortunately our terms of reference do not permit us to do that. We will not make any progress on the matter by having a long debate; as of now, representatives of organisations cannot attend this committee. I share the concerns and frustrations of members. There are many occasions when it would have been helpful to invite representatives from the Army, the Garda, etc. to attend meetings but we were not able to do so. As Chairman of the committee I will address this issue and convey to the people concerned the need for adjustments in our terms of reference if the committee is to be more productive and is to feel it is making a worthwhile contribution. I will consider the points made by Deputy McDowell. Are the arrangements for next week's meeting agreed? Agreed.
The Select Committee adjourned at 4 p.m.