Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 30 Jun 1992

Vol. 421 No. 8

Adjournment Debate. - Government Policy on Political Asylum.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick-East): I raised the matter of the Government's policy on the treatment of those who seek political asylum in this country. My question was not answered adequately and, therefore, I bring it up here tonight.

The incidence of those seeking political asylum has gone up dramatically in recent years. For example, in 1986 the number of applications received was 19; by 1990 that had gone up to 62. I also have information to suggest that the number of asylums granted is very low indeed — one in 1989, one in 1990 and one in 1991.

This is something I have an interest in because the arrangements put in place in the eighties were not satisfactory. In 1985, when I was Minister for Justice, I met the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. As a result of that meeting a set of ten procedures was worked out which were supposed to form the basis of policy in subsequent years. It was never put on a statutory basis because the number of asylum seekers at the time was not very great. However, I understand now that the procedures agreed by me in my capacity as Minister for Justice in 1985 with the High Commissioner for Refugees are not now being adhered to and I would like the Minister to give a commitment that not only is the letter of the procedure being adhered to but the spirit. I think, for example, that decisions are being made now by nominated immigration officers at the ports of entry, and at the airports in particular, and that these decisions are not being referred back to the Department officials for any real decision. I know that information is referred back but I do not believe that the decisions are actually being taken at the level at which they were intended to be taken. I believe that people who are doing their best but have no training in the matter at all are making decisions.

The second area of concern is the number of asylum seekers who end up in prison here. There has been a number of rather bad cases in Shannon where, for example, a Somali citizen ended up in Limerick Jail for several months. Cases were cited before the High Court where the court found in favour of the applicants because the length of detention contravened the 1935 Act. The anecdotal evidence that those of us who live near Shannon would have is now being augmented by a campaign being run by Amnesty International. Amnesty International are a reputable organisation and they are expressing widespread concern, not so much about what the documents available from the Department of Justice state but about the manner in which they are being implemented.

We had an opportunity during Ireland's Presidency of the EC, when the issue of political asylum became a European issue, of setting guidelines for the practice in Europe as a whole. However, we did not avail of that opportunity. If anything, we put our name to a more restricted regime than we had previously agreed to nationally.

I do not want to be contentious in any way but I do want to express personal unhappiness at the way in which procedures which were agreed in 1985 are now being applied. I want to reinforce that unhappiness by saying that it is not just a personal view but the view of many Deputies, especially those who are near Shannon Airport or other airports where there are points of entry for non-EC nationals.

Finally, there is merit in the submissions many Deputies have had from Amnesty International. I would like the Minister to take a personal interest in this. I know he can state the letter of the procedure and, on the face of it, it is acceptable. My point is that the procedure as laid down in the agreement of 1985 is not now being implemented in its spirit and the Minister should review the situation.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice (Mr. O'Dea)

Like Deputy Noonan, I also have had representations on this matter from the Limerick branch of Amnesty International.

Ireland is a party to the 1951 United Nations Convention and the 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees and Government policy on political asylum — and indeed the policy of previous Governments of whatever party — is and has been fully in accordance with our international obligations arising under these agreements.

A procedural agreement giving effect to our commitments at the domestic level was negotiated in December 1985 with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees by the then Minister for Justice who, as it happens, was Deputy Noonan. This agreement continues to be operative and applies in all cases where an application for asylum is being examined.

The arrangements agreed in 1985 provide a comprehensive and fair framework within which the examination of an application for political asylum takes place. The provisions of the agreement set out to ensure that the applicant is given every opportunity to present his case in an environment conducive to establishing as quickly as practicable the facts of the case. The agreement allows as well for the participation of the office of the UN High Commission for Refugees in the consideration of each application.

It would be useful if I were to detail how the procedures work in practice. Persons who request refugee status at Irish ports or at the Department of Justice are interviewed initially by an immigration officer. Every facility is afforded applicants to allow them to make their case in as comfortable a surrounding as possible and the services of an interpreter are provided where necessary. Each application is then forwarded to the London Representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees — who is accredited to Ireland — as well as to the Department of Foreign Affairs for their observations. When these views are obtained in due course, each case is submitted to the Minister for Justice for decision. In the case of an applicant who wishes to travel to a third country the above procedures are also followed, in addition to consultation with the relevant embassy of the country to which the person wishes to travel.

It should also be emphasised that even where an applicant for political asylum fails in his or her application they are not necessarily removed from the State. Some have been allowed to stay on humanitarian grounds while others have been permitted to remain pending their admission to a third country.

I am aware of the proposals made by Amnesty International but I am satisfied that the existing procedures which were endorsed by UNHCR last year are satisfactory and continue to provide now, as they did at the time they were formulated during the Deputy's period as Minister for Justice, an appropriate means of meeting our international commitments. The policy of the Government towards refugees is to be as positive as possible in considering their status here and we take our responsibilities in this regard very seriously indeed. I would like to take this opportunity to assure the House that the procedures followed in these matters were endorsed by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees last year. One point I would also like to underline here and now, and to place publicly on record, is that no Minister for Justice has ever disagreed with the views of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees on whether an applicant for political asylum is entitled to such status.

I am aware of the issue about which Deputy Noonan has made representations. I have received representations and I am aware of the difficult cases. My research and probing so far has led me to believe that the difficult cases, the cases which have been highlighted, are the exception rather than the rule. I am taking a personal interest in the matter and I will follow up on the specific points made by Deputy Noonan to ensure that the procedures are being followed in the manner intended.