Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 5 May 1993

Vol. 430 No. 3

Criminal Law (Suicide) (No. 2) Bill 1993. - Refugee Protection Bill, 1993: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Ms F. Fitzgerald

I ask the Minister to accept this Bill which was proposed by our spokesperson on Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Shatter. I take this opportunity to congratulate Deputy Shatter on bringing this very important and long overdue Bill before the House. In June this year the International Conference on Human Rights will take place in Vienna. In preparation for this conference it would be timely and appropriate for us to take an unequivocal stance on human rights in relation to refugees. If passed, this Bill will ensure that the rights of those claiming political asylum in Ireland are fully and properly protected and that as a State we comply with our obligations under the United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees. We have been a signatory to this convention for many years but we have failed to put in place the proper legal structures to guarantee its application. Many Irish people support the thinking behind this Bill.

I have had contact from constituents working with a family from Sri Lanka who are in very difficult circumstances and living in fear of being repatriated. The local schools signed petitions in support of this family and in a letter to me stated that this family have become part of the local community and that the community supports their application. I received a letter from another woman stating that no person genuinely seeking help from our country should be turned away in this manner.

Many people are concerned and disturbed by reports they read on the treatment of refugees in this country. The crisis in which these people find themselves and emotional trauma they suffer is often increased by their experience here. This is an appalling slur on our country and the matter should be considered as soon as possible. Very often people claiming political asylum are treated as if they were common criminals and their rights under the convention are violated. We have failed to provide the legal protection that is extended to applicants for political asylum in other member states. This Bill provides for an open, just and accountable asylum policy. I ask the Minister to re-examine the approach of the Department to this issue.

I am concerned that despite the relatively low number of people involved, in many cases we take a case hardened approach to this matter. Many of the experiences of people in this country are more reminiscent of the dark ages than a modern country approaching the year 2000. I understand that Amnesty International are taking up the case of Kurdish people who landed in Shannon last year. Many of the sights witnessed by children who were present on that occasion left them very disturbed. There is no need for this to happen. Refugees must be dealt with in a caring manner and given the opportunity to make their case as should be given to any person in this situation. The provisions in this Bill will ensure that is done. I refer particularly to legal assistance, interpretation facilities and many other matters outlined in detail in the Bill.

I would ask the Minister whether training is sufficient for officials dealing with applicants for asylum. I cast no slur on the individuals involved. I am sure they work very hard, but are the necessary training opportunities afforded the people involved in this work? It is sad that much of our approach in this area has been governed by undertones of racism and ambivalence to our international obligations. It is time to cry halt to this approach. This Bill will redress a problem which needed to be addressed for some time. There is reference to this matter in the Programme for Government, although the necessity for legislation in this area is not acknowledged in the programme.

The Bill meets the requests of many non-governmental organisations working in this area. The proposal to set up an independent body to whom appeals could be made is a measure which ought to be put in place. The unsatisfactory manner of dealing with applications has given rise to many court cases primarily because the individuals seeking asylum felt they had not been given a proper opportunity to have their case heard.

Even where procedures are applied they have been applied inadequately. Amnesty International has said that even though few asylum seekers seek protection in Ireland compared with the number seeking asylum in other EC member states, this does not diminish the need for deficiencies in the asylum procedures to be addressed without delay.

The need for this legislation is widely recognised and I hope it will receive a constructive response from the Government. As my colleague, Deputy Shatter said, this is a constructive measure designed to ensure that those who seek refugee status and claim political asylum are treated with dignity and humanity, and that their rights under international law are fully respected. This Bill will allow us to hold our heads high in any international forum where the question of the treatment of refugees is debated.

Minister for Justice (Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn)

I am grateful for this opportunity to set out the Government's policy in the area of refugees and asylum seekers. It is clear from what was said in this House last night that there is a general misunderstanding in this area and I sincerely hope that my clarifying the situation will contribute to more informed debate on this very important topic.

This side of the House fully supports the spirit and thrust of Deputy Shatter's Bill. However, while we support the principle we will be opposing the Bill in this House because it is the Government's policy to ensure that those who are entitled to recognition as refugees are afforded such status in accordance with our obligations under the relevant 1951 United Nations Convention. Our policy is to be as positive as possible in considering their status here and to assist them in every way to integrate with society, if that is what they want. Deputy Shatter would have his colleagues believe that there is a monopoly in compassion and understanding for the plight of refugees on his side of the House, which quite simply, is not the case.

Deputies will be aware of the commitments in the Programme for a Partnership Government in relation to refugees and asylum seekers and I confirm that I will be taking whatever action may be appropriate to meet those commitments. I am carrying out a detailed review of the existing procedures which, contrary to what the House may have been led to believe from some of yesterday's contributions, are quite specific and extensive.

Those procedures have been in existence since 1985 and it is necessary to review them in the light of developments since then. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees has already been in touch with me to indicate its willingness to co-operate in regard to any review. I am very grateful for its offer of expert assistance and am accepting it.

The procedures are both specific and extensive and it is necessary that each and every one of them be considered to ensure that they meet the needs of today. My approach to this review will be guided by humanitarian considerations and the House can be assured that I will take whatever steps necessary, including legislation, to ensure that this State's obligations with regard to the rights of refugees are adequately provided for to meet today's situation.

Deputy Shatter, who has no doubt proposed this Bill with the very best of motives, appears to be very poorly informed of the realities concerning the treatment of refugees in this country. From what he said one could be excused for concluding that there are virtually no procedures governing our international obligations with regard to the processing of applications for refugee status. At the very least, he would appear to be making the case that if there are procedures, they are so informal as to allow for genuine cases to be refused at airports without any hearing at all, and to be sent back to the country where their lives are in danger.

If that was a factual representation of the existing situation, then that would rightly be a cause for grave concern. That is not the case. As the other side of the House readily acknowledged, during a period when the Deputy's party was in office, the existing formal arrangement for processing applications for political asylum was agreed with the competent agency in this field, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. All applications are processed in accordance with that agreement. It is worth noting that the view of the Deputy's party at that time was that the small number of applications here each year did not warrant the introduction of legislation.

One point I emphasise, to which neither Deputy Shatter nor Deputy McDowell gave prominence last night is that each and every application is referred to the UNHCR for its advice as to whether the applicant qualifies for refugee status in accordance with the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees. The Department of Foreign Afairs is also consulted. I have never disagreed with the opinion of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees where it has been their view that an applicant is entitled to asylum. To be fair, I should also underline that no Minister for Justice has ever so disagreed. UNHCR is the expert in the field and effectively the decision making body in granting or refusing recognition of refugee status in so far as the State is concerned.

That is a key element in the whole procedure. It is sometimes suggested as it was by the previous speaker, that departmental officials are making decisions with regard to applications for asylum. That is not the case. Every decision is made by the Minister for Justice who relies heavily on the advice of the UNHCR in order to come to a decision. At this stage, it is appropriate that I should extend my appreciation to the UNHCR for its invaluable assistance in this area. I also pay tribute to its outstanding work world-wide on behalf of refugees and people in need.

The Bill contains provisions with regard to seeking the views of competent bodies. That is already the reality and it is important that this House and the general public should know this. The Bill also provides for a right to legal advice and representation and, where necessary, a right of access to an interpreter. All these provisions are already catered for in the existing procedures.

Every application is examined in accordance with the 1951 UN Convention. There is no question, as Deputies Shatter and McDowell have alleged, of applicants being bundled out of the State at airports. Immigration officers at our sea ports and airports have written guidelines which indicate clearly that a person should not be returned to a country to which he or she is unable or unwilling to go because of fear of persecution, nor should he or she be returned to a country where his or her personal safety might be seriously threatened as a result of the political situation there. When it appears to an immigration officer that an individual might be an asylum seeker, his or her case is immediately referred to my Department.

Immigration officers are aware that it is not necessary for an individual to use the term "refugee" or "asylum" to be an asylum seeker. Whether an individual is an asylum seeker is a matter to be decided in the light of all the circumstances of a particular case. In case of any doubt, an immigration officer is instructed to refer the matter to my Department.

The guidelines also provide that an individual is not to be refused entry or removed from the State until he or she has been given an opportunity to present his or her case fully. Every application is examined in accordance with the 1951 Convention and every applicant is given the necessary assistance, including interpretation facilities, to help in the interview. Every applicant is also informed of the procedures being followed and he or she is given the opportunity to contact the UNHCR or its local representative if he or she so wishes.

Mr. Carey

If they understand, Minister.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

Applicants are informed that they may have access to a legal representative.

Mr. Carey

If they understand.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

The Deputy did not listen when I said that interpretation facilities are available to all of them.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Carey must cease interrupting.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

He does not understand the terminology.

Mr. Carey

I do not want a lecture from the Minister or the Department about this.

An Ceann Comhairle

Please, Deputy Carey. Doubtless the Deputy will have an opportunity to speak later.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

I want to talk about immigration officers and officers of my Department who deal with these matters, because, while nobody may intend it, the impression is sometimes given that their approach in dealing with applications for refugee status is at best offhand and, at worst, callous. That is an unfounded slur, not only on the professional competence of the personnel involved, who are ordinary people like the Deputies in this House, but also on their humanity.

Probably what gives rise to most misunderstanding concerning refugees is not the application of procedures, which meet international norms and are scrupulously applied in each and every case, but the fact that most applicants simply do not qualify for refugee status and must have their cases dealt with accordingly.

Of the 40 or so applications per annum only about two are entitled to refugee status. It is not my view, or the view of some official in my Department, or the view of an immigration officer that they fail to establish a case for refugee status, it is the view of UNHCR. It is necessary to refuse the applications of those who in the view of UNHCR are not entitled to such status.

Indeed, it would undermine the whole concept of refugee status if this country was to depart from international norms by according refugee status to persons who, in the view of the internationally recognised experts in the field, simply do not qualify for that status. No other country, to my knowledge, behaves in this way. No other country of which I am aware, deals with illegal immigrants who have failed to secure refugee status any differently from us. The hard fact of life is that if they are illegal immigrants, they must leave the State and this State, like all others, must take the precautions necessary to ensure that they do so. It would be a fraud to pretend that any legislation that may be introduced will somehow get around the harsh reality that some people will claim refugee status without any basis for doing so.

There is one important proposal in Deputy Shatter's Bill which does not figure in the existing procedures and it will be addressed in the current review — that is, the proposal for a Refugee Appeals Tribunal. This is an area to which I have given some thought but there are some immediate problems which come to mind.

For example, as I have said, the UNHCR is effectively the decision-making body and the experts in this area. It is difficult to envisage an appropriate appeals body which would have the same competence and authority and which would be capable, for example, of overturning a decision of the UNHCR.

At the same time, I am concerned to ensure that whatever procedures are in existence are transparent and the subject of public satisfaction. It may very well be that there is scope for an appointment — I have in mind for example, a retired judge or officer of the courts — who could be in a position to ensure that the procedures are scrupulously adhered to in each case. After all, the numbers to date are relatively small. As I say, I will be giving particular attention to that aspect of the matter.

I have gone into some detail on the existing procedures, not to wave a flag on their behalf, but to emphasise that they are there, that they feature a major role for the UNHCR in every application and that the situation is not as uncontrolled as the other side of the House would have us believe. They are not, of course, sacrosanct and like all procedures they need to be looked at from time to time to see if they are achieving their objective. As I have said, the Government supports the principle of the Bill and, indeed, the sentiments which have given rise to it. However, we will not be supporting it, primarily because I will be bringing forward my own proposals but also because Deputy Shatter's Bill is not acceptable in its present form.

At best, the Bill simply sets out the existing procedures without due regard to a number of developments which will also have to be taken on board. The Bill takes no account of the obligations which will be placed on us under the Dublin Convention on Asylum. That convention places certain duties on us and on the other member states to consider which of the Twelve will deal with applications for refugee status in certain situations.

Apart from that, the Bill essentially repeats what is in existence already. For example, it contains no real provisions to deal with the growing problem throughout Europe of fraudulent or bogus applications. What is essential to achieve in any procedures regulating the processing of asylum is that they cater for the genuine refugee. International migration has changed in many respects in the last decade and one important change is the increasing blurring of distinction between refugees and economic migrants.

Asylum is essentially a humanitarian approach by the State to provide protection for those who are vulnerable, in fear of persecution and in urgent need of sanctuary. Immigration, however, is a matter of State sovereignty and it is the State itself which decides, for its own good reasons, if citizens of other States are to be admitted. Europe has now entered a phase whereby increased numbers of international movements of asylum-seekers with very weak or no genuine claims are threatening the established system. The development of a Single European Market within the European Community, with no internal border control and joint external borders as one of its aims, combined with the overburdening of the asylum procedures in industrialised countries, and a certain number of abusive or weak claims, will pose new challenges for all European Governments including our own.

I am illustrating what might be called some negative aspects in order to emphasise that these points too will have to be taken into account in any review of the existing procedures. It is important that what we do now is right for the existing situation, as well as for any potential future situation.

In those European countries for which data are available, between 50 per cent and 80 per cent of claimants arrive without documents or with forgeries, placing a severe burden of judgment on the admission authorities.

I do not believe that carte blanche could be given to any person who arrived in Ireland without any document to establish identity and about whom there might be serious doubts about involvement in illegal activity. I do not think they should be allowed freedom to stay in Ireland——

Mr. Carey

So much for the Minister's compassion.

Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn

——solely by mentioning asylum. The case which recently received much publicity would be one which would fall into this category. It would be instructive if I gave some practical details of the problems our European partners have to face, problems which we may have to face in the future and which would have a severe impact on our economic and social well-being.

The number applying for asylum in Europe rose from 64,000 in 1983 to about 700,000 last year. Many of those arrived illegally. Fewer than a fifth have been found to be genuine refugees and in Germany, which alone had about half a million applications last year, the proportion is as low as 3 per cent.

It is worth remembering that we are not talking about all of those who are fleeing their homes for one reason or another and who arrive on our shores. We are talking about a definition of a specific type of person and it is worth spelling it out. The UN Convention defines a refugee as 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 opinion, first of all is outside the country of his nationality and secondly is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of his country.

The phrase "well-founded fear of being persecuted" is the important element in that definition. There may be many reasons that are compelling and understandable, but only one motive has been singled out to denote a refugee. The expression "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted", by indicating a specific motive automatically makes all other reasons for leaving a country irrelevant to the definition of a refugee.

That may sound harsh in itself, but it goes back to the very reasons for the existence of the Geneva Convention in the first place. It is concerned with providing protection for persons who are in real danger to their very lives if returned to their country of origin. An economic migrant, on the other hand, is a person who for reasons other than those contained in the definition, voluntarily leaves his country in order to take up residence elsewhere. He may be moved by a desire for adventure, or by reasons of a personal nature, or even by starvation, but if he is moved exclusively by economic reasons, he is an economic migrant and not a refugee to be dealt with in accordance with the UN Convention and the procedures which flow from that.

There is no doubt but that the distinction is, on occasion, blurred and that can only be harmful to the plight of the genuine refugee. It is, of course, a matter of grave concern that Governments by way of international co-operation ensure that answers are found to the global problems of starvation, natural disasters, economic hardship and so on, but it is also the duty of Governments to uphold the rights of refugees and that is specifically what we are dealing with here tonight.

The asylum systems in developed states were established in response to a particular situation. However, in the mid-seventies, immigration restrictions were introduced all over Europe for essentially economic reasons. Forms of entry, such as family reunification and asylum, became the only options for those who wanted to immigrate.

The more that asylum is used as an immigration mechanism, the greater the risk of erosion of public support of humanitarian action for genuine refugees. The industrialised nations of Europe have been clearly heading for a crisis over asylum in recent years, primarily as a result of the abuse of the system. The protraction and over-burdening of asylum procedures causes hardship for the genuine asylum seekers and tends to attract abusive applications. The increase in unfounded claims, and the growing cost of assistance has damaged public opinion in Europe about immigrants and refugees and has created serious problems for the receiving countries and for people in real need of protection.

I would be concerned that we would be heading for similar problems if we do not regulate the operation of our asylum procedures to achieve the essential balance of due concern for the genuine refugee allied to appropriate measures to ensure that the system is not clogged up by bogus applicants. The experience in Europe has shown that those who would abuse the asylum procedures are those who would seek to migrate to western Europe by way of the asylum system.

We need to be flexible in our approach in order that the genuine refugee is not overlooked or, worse, mistreated. Asylum systems generally in Europe were established for much smaller numbers of applicants and as a result most countries are attempting to make adjustments to refine their systems with a view to streamlining. Deputy Shatter's Bill seems to be going in the other direction.

The question of a policy of detention of asylum seekers was raised last night. It is a point which I wish to address given that there is so much uninformed comment about it. The simple fact is that there is no such policy and there never has been. No persons have ever been detained simply as a result of making an application for political asylum.

The position is that Ireland, like every other country, operates a system of aliens controls intended principally to deal with attempts to enter the State unlawfully — for example, by tendering forged or fraudulent documents. It is the normal practice to return a person detected doing that to his or her place of origin or, if it is not possible to do that, he or she is detained pending the making of suitable arrangements. That is the practice in all States.

To allow persons who had been refused entry for those reasons to simply walk free, as Deputy McDowell appeared to suggest last night, solely on the basis that they had applied for political asylum would be effectively to permit them to disappear underground without coming to attention until years later. Alternatively, such persons might even avail of the common travel area with Britain to move illegally to that country. It is worth pointing out at this stage that no persons who have applied for political asylum are currently detained.

In this regard, it might also be useful to refer to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs on the harmonisation within the European Communities of asylum laws and policies which was prepared last year by Mr. Parick Cooney, MEP. Mr. Cooney, in his report, noted that the question of the detention of asylum seekers is an emotive and difficult issue. He pointed out that the difficulty arises from having to decide if detention is necessary to protect the asylum system itself. His considered conclusion was that detention must be available as an option to counter the possibility of abuse of the system and to protect the genuine refugee.

I am, a Cheann Comhairle, engaged in a detailed review of the procedures applying to those who claim refugee status which will extend to other areas of immigration control also and, although I do not disagree with the thrust of Deputy Shatter's Bill, I think it would be unwise in the extreme to proceed with legislation until such time as I have completed the review and had the benefit of the expert advice offered to me by UNHCR. There is a commitment in the Programme for Government to act and I will be honouring that commitment at the earliest opportunity.

Some critical comments were made in this House yesterday, a Cheann Comhairle, concerning my absence, despite the fact that the Deputies concerned knew quite well that I was attending the annual conference of the Garda Representative Association in Killarney in my official capacity as Minister for Justice. Of course, it is quite possible that Deputy McDowell in particular would prefer that I should ignore the Garda Representative Association annual conference. As Minister for Justice I feel it is my duty to attend each of the annual conferences of the various representative associations for which I have a responsibility in this House.

In conclusion, a Cheann Comhairle, I oppose Deputy Shatter's Bill.

Ms McManus

This debate takes place at a time when migration is becoming a major issue in the European context. The collapse of communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe opens up the possibility of more ethnic tensions, border wars, social turbulence and mass migration of refugees. It is a sobering thought that current events in the former Yugoslavia may be only a foretaste of further greater upheaval to come. Migration from Africa has particular significance in relation to Mediterranean countries where immigrants are often employed in jobs that Europeans do not want to take. There has been a rise in native resentment which has been exploited by right wing extremists and has been the cause of racist clashes.

These same groups are setting the agenda and have enjoyed some success in that several European Governments are now enforcing a very strict regime in relation to immigration. These countries are moving towards a Fortress Europe policy, using the armed forces to prevent illegal migration by land, sea or air. Such a policy does not really address the larger problem that Europe's overall population is stagnating while those of neighbouring continents are forecast to double or treble by early next century.

Here in Ireland our traditional insularity may well be of little use in the years ahead as our commitment to Europe will be put to the test. As a country which historically had to cope with emigration, our response to this Bill will be an indication of how we, as Europeans, propose to cope with immigration. It is not that it is a Bill about immigration, but it does raise a question about how we have, in our own way, built a Fortress Ireland.

The record of the Department of Justice is not good. It is one of secrecy, xenophobia and failure. With due respect to what the Minister said earlier, it was only last year that a High Court judge was trenchant in his criticism of the previous Minister's failure to deal fairly with asylum seekers and comply with the procedures laid down by the 1985 agreement. We would do well to remember that some asylum seekers at least may well be people who have been struggling for democracy and against the forces of terrorism and dictatorship.

The important point in this Bill is the definition of the term "refugee". A refugee is a person who:

(a) owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion—

(i) is outside of the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it, or

(ii) not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to that country.

This is a clear statement that what we are debating here is asylum seekers rather than economic refugees. An asylum seeker is often someone who is fleeing for his life and in desperate search of a safe haven. In 1951 we signed the Geneva Convention and in 1967 signed the Protocol. In doing so, we were staging publicly that as an independent country we have international responsibilities. To our shame those responsibilities have not been faced up to. No Government has brought in the legislation to match those commitments.

It took until 1985 for an informal agreement to be signed setting up procedures which theoretically guarantee certain rights to asylum seekers, basic rights like the right to legal representation, the right to an interpreter, the right to contact with an NGO and also the right to know, in case of refusal, why an application is being denied. There was nothing wrong with that agreement. There was a lot of good in it. The problem is that it was never put fully into operation and this is certainly not the fault of the immigration officers. It is simply because of a lack of commitment, a lack of concern on the part of the Department of Justice. That is why there has been so much lobbying in support of legislation.

Deputy Shatter is to be congratulated on having drawn up a comprehensive and realistic Bill. I have two criticisms of the Bill. The first is a general one which I would probably levy at most Bills coming through this Dáil. The wording of the Bill is regrettable in that it reinforces the notion that only men are in the world and that somehow women are not centre stage. One of the recommendations of the Second Commission on the Status of Women was that, in the drawing up of legislation, recognition should be given to women as well as to men. It is worth pointing out in this regard that men and women have found themselves under attack for their religious or political beliefs and have ended up seeking asylum in many countries as a consequence. Indeed, this year Amnesty International recognised and acknowledged that fact when it launched a campaign on International Women's Day on behalf of four women, one of whom lost her life as a consequence of her work as a human rights campaigner, others who had suffered from being threatened, imprisoned and harassed for their political activities and one who was awarded the Nobel Peace Price in 1991. It is appropriate that this Bill should be amended in order that the language would reflect the reality of women's increasing role in the political sphere and their suffering as refugees of conscience.

The disintegration we have already witnessed in the former Yugoslavia is an augury of what is ahead of us. The likelihood both of demographic pressures and political instability in parts of Europe, Africa and the Middle East will increase the number of asylum seekers. The new world order is proving to be a place of great disorder and the complacency being shown by this Fianna Fáil and Labour Government in facing the larger international disorder and providing a Bill to deal with the problem is deeply disturbing.

The Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, built up good support from Amnesty International's work for asylum seekers, particularly in the Munster region, while this difficulty had to be coped with in the past number of years. It is shameful that when an opportunity is presented by a Deputy who has worked hard to produce such a comprehensive and realistic Bill there is such a small minded response from a Government that promised to be open minded.

I have one other criticism of the Bill, and this again may reflect the fact that Deputy Shatter is a member of the legal profession. There is a greater emphasis on the judicial process in the legislation than I would advocate if I were in a position to draft such a Bill. The setting up of a tribunal is an important aspect of the Bill because it provides the right of appeal, but I suspect it would also have the side effect of generating a considerable amount of work for the legal profession. In my view the right of appeal could be provided through an office of Ombudsman, which would be a simplified method of dealing with the rights of asylum seekers. When one considers how the free legal aid scheme collapsed under the weight of the demands put on it, I wonder even if the Government saw the light and supported this Bill, whether it would be able to provide the necessary legal framework and representation for refugees.

It is interesting to note that in the Shannon region before the election all TDs were lobbied on this matter and Amnesty International received 100 per cent support. Now that the election is over the Government parties, both Fianna Fáil and Labour, are sitting back and promising that when possible it will take action on the matter. It is similar to what Alice was told, that she could have jam yesterday, she could have jam tomorrow but she must not expect to have jam today. It would be farcical if it were not so tragic for those people whose rights are being trampled on in their own countries. When they arrive in this country they are sent to jail or deported on the next flight instead of receiving justice. While it is true that at present no person seeking asylum is in jail here, some people have had sad experiences. It makes a mockery of the "céad míle fáilte" sign at Shannon Airport and puts a whole new connotation on the term "the Shannon stopover".

The Government has used the argument that only a small minority of people are affected. It is precisely because only a small number are affected that we should ensure all the more that their rights are not violated. At present there are approximately 70 or 80 asylum seekers here, but among that number there may be people who have spent up to one year in jail waiting to be released, not because they have committed a crime but because the mechanisms are not in place to defend their rights. The reality is that because ordinary committed citizens provided them with support and legal assistance, some of those people have been granted asylum here? It is a great tribute to those in Amnesty International, the Irish Refugee Council and the Irish Red Cross that certain refugees have met with some compassion and have been allowed to keep some modicum of dignity. However, in view of the increased likelihood of more asylum seekers coming here in the future, we cannot expect that such organisations will be able, or should be expected, to carry the burden. At the end of the day this is a political matter requiring a political response. If we are, as we claim to be, a civilised, independent, democratic country, we should start acting as such. We should face up to our international responsibilities and this Bill gives us the opportunity to do that.

The Bill is well thought out, realistic and deserves the support of the Government. It already has the support of other partners. How can Deputies, particularly those in the Labour Party who claim to respect civil rights regardless of class, creed or colour, come into this House and vote down a Bill that will ensure that those who are oppressed or persecuted are given a fair hearing and some justice here? As a race we are not unfamiliar with persecution; our history should teach us to be generous. If the Government does not support this Bill it will be flying in the face of the wishes of the majority of Irish people, who wait to provide refuge to those who genuinely need it.

I know this Bill will be defeated and that is a great shame. I suspect that, like many other aspects of change that have been promised by this Government, it will slip down the list of priorities. There is always something else to hit the headlines and become more important than dealing with the rights of a few foreigners. Very often we do not even know their names because they are whisked out of the country so quickly. A few days ago I visited a family of refugees here and because of the work of the Irish Red Cross and the Irish Refugee Council their material needs have been met. They have a roof over their heads and a medical card. They have the basic requirement, but they do not have the language. It is inspiring to see them communicating with their Irish neighbours with only a handful of words between them. For those who remain in Ireland that reality is not recognised in this Bill or by the Department. There is an ongoing need for refugees to have their difficulties and problems recognised in a structured way. It is not that long ago since the fifties when a Yugoslav football team came to Ireland and people were advised not to go to watch them play because of the serious consequences regarding one's salvation. We have moved a long way since those days, but not far enough. It is important to remember that at the end of the day we are talking about individuals who are often extremely vulnerable, who are in a foreign country and for whom Ireland is not a place of welcome but a place of rejection.

Mr. Carey

I support the Bill. I have a particular interest in asylum seekers and refugees because my constituency contains one of the principal points of entry to this country, Shannon Airport. I have seen some harrowing cases in my constituency. I have seen people subjected to a great deal of stress and mental torture, interred without trial and sent to jail in Limerick. I have raised this matter in the House on many occasions. I have been in touch with the aliens section in the Department of Justice and spoken to officers in the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The current legal position here is deficient and Deputy Shatter's Bill makes an honest effort to meet the demands required today. On numerous occasions I received support from Deputies in the mid-west region in this regard and Deputy Kemmy was particularly vocal regarding particular cases.

I am disappointed that the Government has now decided to oppose this measure. As Deputy Shatter requested last night it could have accepted the spirit of the Bill, allow it to go through Second Stage and introduce its own amendments on Committee Stage. However, it chose not to do that. The most disappointing aspect of the debate this evening is that the Minister seems to be of the opinion that there is nothing wrong and that people were not interned without trial.

I wish to give a recent example of a case concerning an Iraqi, Dr. Laith Tappouni, a medical doctor who, for reasons of conscience, left Iraq. We are all aware of the noble democrat in command there, Saddam Hussein, who is known to treat people very humanely — he cuts off their hands and heads — and deals with the Opposition in a very democratic manner. The doctor arrived in Shannon Airport seeking asylum and was sent to Limerick Prison for two months. This man had a good command of English, he sent a handwritten letter to me asking for my assistance. I made representations to the Department on his behalf. Unfortunately for Dr. Tappouni these events occurred during the general election and the negotiations which followed it. People took the view that when the new Government was formed this man's case would be dealt with properly and considered in full. However, Amnesty International had to go to court to seek legal redress in this case. It is only when the Department of Justice is threatened with legal redress that positive action is taken.

I do not know whether these cases occur as a result of the aliens division being understaffed. I was assured by the Minister that the aliens division is fully aware of the position. However, when the aliens division decides to deport people to their own country it very often occurs on a Saturday or a Sunday when it cannot be contacted. That difficulty constantly arises. It is unbelievable that a Minister from the west could make the claims she did in the House tonight. I sympathise with the people in the aliens division because on reading the Official Report, the current Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, put down a question regarding the Department's aliens division on 15 October 1992. The then Minister for Justice, Mr. Flynn, as part of an extensive reply, stated:

Arising from that meeting, a number of areas were identified where it was considered that, on the face of it, a detailed examination could lead to improvements.

Deputy Flynn was unwilling to concede that anything was wrong in his Department but at least he admitted, following a meeting, that some sections of the aliens division required to be examined. However, the performance of the former Minister, Deputy Burke, left much to be desired because he expected the aliens division to deal with all problems regarding asylum seekers that arose while Ireland held the EC Presidency. I recall an unfortunate case in Shannon Airport where a Somalian applied for asylum. When I spoke to the Department on his behalf I was told that no officer from the aliens division was available. Those officers were all required to be in Dublin Castle where European legislation was being discussed and the Minister had requested their presence. I sympathise with civil servants who have to do their duty according to the Minister. No Minister for Justice should expect any understaffed group to continue in this fashion.

I am disappointed that officers in the aliens division in the Department of Justice have not prevailed upon the Minister to accept this Bill because it is in their interest to proceed with it in this manner. I am surprised that the Minister, as a Fianna Fáil Deputy, would prevaricate because at the end of his reply the previous Minister, Mr. Flynn — this is the kernel of the matter, where the Irish are still looking over their shoulders at the British who have been gone since 1922 — stated:

However, vigilance against illegal immigration, particularly by those who would wish to use Ireland as an easy back-door to other European destinations, will continue to be necessary.

Many of the problems in this regard do not rest with the Department of Justice, I believe that the heavy hand of the Department of Foreign Affairs is involved as well as people in other countries who insist that we change our attitude to asylum seekers and that Ireland should not give a lead — as Deputy Shatter is trying to do in this Bill — by putting the United Nations Convention into law and expressing what was agreed in 1985. People hold the view that we should not lead, that we should be subservient to the views of the British, Germans or French. Why will the Minister not admit the influence of the Department of Foreign Affairs? If that is not the cure, who is influencing the Department of Justice in these matters?

Many people here cannot understand why people seeking asylum are put in jail. Immigration officers in the Shannon area do not have a choice in this regard because there is no provision for the reception of people in this position. Immigration officers are expected to work in terrible conditions and it is even worse when they have to deal with families. Recently, there was an application for asylum by a Yugoslavian family, they spent a night in Shannon and were then sent to the Garda barracks where they spent the next night. I almost expected the adults to be committed to jail and was concerned about the children but, thankfully, a humane approach was adopted.

I appeal to the Minister and her officials to make a realistic appraisal of the current position in regard to the acceptance of asylum seekers here. As indicated by a previous speaker the Red Cross have been very generous, particularly in Ennis, and have made strenuous efforts to ensure that these people are well cared for, that stress is diminished as much as possible and that there is liaison between the Red Cross and the Department of Justice. The Red Cross do significant work in that area.

Greater attention must be paid to proper liaison between the Department of Health and the health boards in regard to the provision of supplementary welfare. We should not rely totally on the resources available to the Red Cross for fear of exhausting them. We have an obligation to provide supplementary welfare for applicants, but we have not honoured it. When the Irish Red Cross had exhausted its funds and asylum seekers saught refuge here, they were hurriedly deported. I am not sure if people were deported to their countries of origin and subsequently lost their lives. I am not aware of any such incident. Fears have been expressed that people who were deported to their countries of origin were persecuted on their return. In the case of the eminent doctor I referred to earlier, Dr. Tappouni, he had the advantage of speaking English. There were also refugees from Sri Lanka and Somalia for whom translators were not available when they arrived at Shannon Airport.

I visited a man in Limerick jail who had suffered persecution and whose family had been shot in the civil war in Somalia. He had escaped and wished to travel to the promised land, the United States or Canada. He did not want to come to this country; he wanted to get work. He was an asylum seeker in transit, but he was imprisoned here for two or three months. I made appropriate noises in the Dáil and the Ministers assured me there would be no internment without trial. But that applicant was interned without trial. Eventually, Mr. Bob Eager, a solicitor for Amnesty International, elicited the applicant's true story through an interpreter employed by the University in Limerick.

I had been in contact with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in London and he conveyed to me the details that had been despatched from Dublin. I am sure those immigration officers took this information in good faith. People fleeing from tyrannical regimes view people in power, who ask questions — for example, policemen and immigration officers — with fear and they will not give truthful answers. It is important to have an independent person who will reassure applicants that the truth will be conveyed to the United Nations High Commissioner.

That is why Deputy Shatter introduced this Bill. The Government had plenty of time to introduce its own Bill. The Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, promised to introduce legislation in this regard some time ago, but it did not come to pass. Our party had been examining this matter for a period and it was time for Deputy Shatter to introduce this Bill. I consider it is being introduced six years too late. I sought its introduction in 1986, when my party were in Government, and in 1987 and later years.

As a humanitarian gesture we should have a proper reception area in Shannon Airport to cater for refugees from Eastern Europe and other countries who may be fleeing civil war and may wish to travel to the United States or Canada. We should have a tribunal and our dealings with refugees should be transparent and above board. I received many letters from Amnesty International in Galway and I am sure, having listened to the Minister's contribution tonight they will be amused. I hope they will send the same number of letters to the Minister as they sent me protesting in regard to her attitude on this matter. I hope they took note of what she said this evening when she denied there was any particular difficulty.

The Minister indicated some acceptance of the tribunal proposed in the Bill. I would have proposed a simpler court over which a local district justice could have presided together with officers from the Departments of Enterprise and Employment, Law Reform and Justice. I proposed that a group of three independents be made available in Shannon Airport; but Deputy Shatter, having considered this proposal, felt that the Department of Justice would not accept any group who did not have some legal basis. We did not propose the tribunal for any reason of pomp, we could have had an ombudsman but we wished to put an appeal system in place that would have a legal basis and that would be accepted by the Government side.

The problem of refugees will not be dealt with easily owing to the position in Europe, particularly the civil war in Yugoslavia. There was a curious change in national policy after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Prior to that time asylum seekers at Shannon Airport had no difficulty in travelling on to the United States or Canada. At that time the Canadians welcomed Iron Curtain citizens with open arms. Shannon Airport is only a transit area and there were no major difficulties. But following the upheavals in Eastern Europe there was an immediate change in attitude on the other side of the Atlantic. There was also a change in attitude here. That arose because we became very friendly with the authorities in Poland. I recall a number of Polish refugees who sought asylum here, having fled Poland because they were conscientious objectors and did not wish to be inducted into the army under compulsory conscription. They had a particular difficulty because they were Jehovah Witnesses and they thought that the authorities here would not be sympathetic to their case. I took up their case, even though they do not participate in elections, as Deputy Ryan is aware. However, although I pursued their case, they were eventually sent back to Poland. Those people had relatives in Canada and had spent all their means on that flight. The Red Cross in Ennis, Tony McEnery, his wife and family and the people in Dublin, looked after them very well. In spite of the High Court case — Amnesty pleaded their case — the Government insisted on sending these people back to their own country.

I am concerned at the Minister's interpretation of the Bill. She said that the UN Convention defines a refugee as a person who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, etc. I could never understand how Jehovah Witnesses, who were conscientious objectors, were not deemed to have a well-founded fear of persecution. One or two of these people who are living in Poland still write to me. They are always praising the hospitality of Clare people. Deputy McDowell would know all about that. The people of Clare are very hospitable and the Government's attitude to asylum seekers goes against what we believe.

With one or two exceptions, Fianna Fáil has never looked sympathetically at legislation introduced by the Fine Gael Party or any measure introduced by another party. This has been its tradition for the 60 years it has been in power.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Browne,

Wexford): We have always been leaders.

Mr. Carey

The Minister said that she supported some aspects of Deputy Shatter's Bill; she supported the spirit of the Bill. She was trying to give the impression that Fianna Fáil are nice people. The Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, can also be nice at times.

Mr. Connor

Very charming.

Mr. Carey

Yes.

Mr. Connor

Sulphuric charm.

Mr. Carey

I find it very hard to understand how the Labour Party can oppose this Bill. During the period 1987-92, I listened to the Labour Party talking about the need for justice, equity, etc., principles which were dear to its heart. The Labour Party said that it would honour its commitments in this regard when it was in Government.

Mr. Connor

It bled itself to death talking about them.

Mr. Carey

The Labour Party has been given the opportunity to make those same points in the debate on this Bill. Both the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs. Deputy Spring, and the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, referred when they were on this side of the House to the need for justice and equity. On one occasion Deputy Spring brought the then Minister into the House to explain why the wives and children of medical students were not allowed into this country by the aliens section of the Department. He was called to order by the Ceann Comhairle for his disorderly conduct when the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, did not answer his question. The Minister for Justice has done the same to us tonight. On 15 October 1992, my birthday, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, put down a question seeking information on the aliens section of the Department. I sympathise with the people working in this section who have been kicked around in regard to this issue and have had to follow political decisions made by the former Minister for Justice, Commissioner Flynn. It did not matter that the people in the aliens section of the Department had to work 24 hours a day. As long as Commissioner Flynn was all right everything else was supposed to be all right. Even if there were only two people in the section, they had to put up with this.

I do not know how the Labour Party can vote against this Bill; it does not fit in with its ethos and all the things it said during the years. The Labour Party in my constituency never supported Fianna Fáil. The Fine Gael Party never supported Fianna Fáil for a number of reasons, the primary reason being that it never took on board anything proposed by us. In some cases it came along afterwards and made the same proposals. When Deputy Killeen became chairman of Clare County Council he set up the Shannon Status Committee. When I proposed the setting-up of this committee a few months earlier, Deputy Killeen voted agains the motion. I suppose that is politics — if someone comes up with a good idea, take it. The Labour Party always had a conscience, and I believe it still has a conscience. I hope that party will show it is indepedent of the withering hand of Fianna Fáil. Once Fianna Fáil gets a hold on the Labour Party, they will be sucked in with Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Browne

(Wexford): We are far from withering.

Mr. Carey

It seems from the opinion polls that Fianna Fáil has gained most from this partnership Government. The Labour Party has lost out badly. The Labour Party should support this very sensible, worthy and timely Bill. I hope Deputy McDowell will indicate that this is what his party is going to do.

Mr. D. McDowell

I wish to share my time with Deputy Tony Killeen.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. D. McDowell

It is interesting that Deputy Carey did not mention the issue being debated in the past three or four minutes in his attempt to persuade the Labour Party to leave its partnership arrangement. I will address some of these points in the latter part of my speech.

Last Saturday week I met a young African woman at a social function. She was about 25 years of age and had been in this country for just over a week. Before she left Africa she had been involved in a Catholic organisation which is engaged in educational activities in general and literacy programmes in particular — the sort of activities which would be regarded as normal and everyday in Western Europe. Unfortunately, such activities are regarded as subversive in her country in that they provide people with the wherewithal to challenge an undemocratic and patriarchal society.

As a result of her work, this woman had been threatened by the security forces in her country and she felt that she had no option but to leave. Incidentally, she worked closely with overseas workers and Irish priests. It was on their advice that she came to Ireland. I am not at liberty to mention this woman's name, nor can I mention the country from which she comes. Having spoken to her for approximately 15 minutes I was left in no doubt that she was genuinely terrified that her presence in this country would become known, that her family would be hurt or killed and that she might have done the wrong thing by coming to Ireland in the first place.

I could not tell this woman, with hand on heart, that she had any reasonable chance of getting asylum in this country. Recent experience would suggest that the contrary is the case. We pride ourselves on being a compassionate and progressive country. We have recently accepted refugees from Bosnia. Previously we accepted refugees from Vietnam and elsewhere but it has to be said we have not been slow in clapping ourselves on the backs for having done so. On a more positive note, I am quite sure the Irish people, as a whole, were very pleased to do what little we could in alleviating the plight of these unfortunate people. In that context it is all the more surprising that we persist in dealing with individual applications for asylum in a fashion that is little short of shameful.

Many applictions for asylum are made in airport arrival lounges by people who simply refuse to re-board planes. More often than not, such people are detained at an airport until some official of the Department of Justice decides their fate. Normally, such decisions are taken sooner rather than later. In almost every case in recent experience the individual in question was dispatched with considerable haste.

Occasionally an application for asylum is made by somebody who will have entered this country illegally. In such instances, reasons for refusal are rarely given and the decision taken rarely justified by the Department. Even when a deportation order is made, the matter is by no means at an end. The unfortunate individual is put in custody, sometimes for many months, while arrangements are being made for the deportation to be carried out. In a recent case one individual was released by the courts because the Department had been unable to make arrangements for the deportation because of the ban on direct international flights to Libya.

These people have committed no offence in this country. I find it appalling that we can treat them in this way. It is worth asking just why we can do so. There has been a long-established principle that even the simplest of administrative procedures must observe the rules of natural justice. A case was brought to our courts recently by the parents of a child who was expelled from school, who claimed that proper administrative procedures were not followed in taking that decision. Another case has been taken by a person expelled from a golf club. The rules of the Jockey Club have been challenged in our courts for the same reason. In all of these cases, and many others, the courts have insisted that the rules of natural justice be applied. Why then do not the rules of natural justice apply in cases of applications for asylum when the very life of the individual concerned may be at stake?

Of course, the answer is that these people are not citizens of this State and, therefore, do not warrant constitutional protection, nor are they citizens of the European Community. In most cases they are people from the Third World who are not white. It has been suggested that these people are merely attempting to enter Ireland or Europe by the back door, that in essence they are immigrants. It is worth taking a few minutes to consider just how we treat would-be immigrants from Third World countries.

Some weeks ago I was approached by an Indian doctor who had been working in the neuro-surgical section of Beaumont Hospital for most of last year. He was offered a contract in that hospital, and another contract in a Cork hospital, again in the neuro-surgical section. He applied to the Department of Labour for a permit to remain and work in this country. The Department of Labour granted him a work permit. He was told then that, in accordance with normal practice, he was required to make an application to an Irish Embassy abroad for a residency visa here. He left and applied to the Irish Embassy in London. He was refused, given no reason for the refusal, but invited to apply again. He applied again and was refused again, without being given any reason for the refusal. He returned to this country, approached me and some of my colleagues, including Deputy Bhamjee. We appealed the case to the Minister for Justice; the Minister refused. I was told by an official of the Department of Justice that it was not policy to explain why such applications have been refused. I protested but was given no satisfactory explanation. Apparently we do not feel we are in any way accountable to these people.

However, I have to confess that I have my suspicions in that case. The wife of that doctor is pregnant and will give birth some time in the next few months. Any child born in this country is an Irish citizen. It would be difficult, perhaps impossible, legally to expel the child's parents at any future time. Therefore, it is possible we would be giving this family an indefinite right to remain here. Quite frankly, I do not see that that would be any great disaster. Our health services might well benefit from the presence of that individual, as they have from many others who have contributed to our health service over previous decades. I do not see that the fabric of Irish society would suffer greatly by allowing this family to settle here. Apparently the Department of Justice feels otherwise. Perhaps there was another reason; I do not know. They did not advance any reason.

The truth is that we are enforcing British immigration rules in this country. I find that entirely unacceptable. I do not see that our Department of Justice should carry a brief for the British Home Office. Britain has a multi-racial society. If they want to restrict entry, that is entirely a matter for them. We should have no hand, act or part in doing their dirty work for them. Unfortunately, I fear it goes even further than that. I am open to correction on this and hope I am proven wrong — but I understand that at a Council of Justice Ministers last autumn, the previous Government objected to a proposal which would have rendered it easier for the families of refugees in EC countries to join their relatives within the European Community. I should be interested to have confirmation from the Minister on that point. I believe the measure proposed was reasonable and humane and would have had no effect on this country. Therefore, the suspicion arises again that we are doing other people's dirty work for them.

Ireland should immediately join the Schengen group of countries in eliminating the need for passports within the European Community. All of us claim to be committed to the free movement of people within the Community, yet we continue to insist that passports be presented at frontier posts. I appreciate there are some genuine reasons in connection with security. Equally it is clear that one of the more disreputable reasons is our continued willingness to enforce the immigration legislation of our former colonial masters. I am entirely opposed to this and believe we should cease that practice forthwith.

I should like to turn for a few moments to the Bill introduced by Deputy Shatter which I believe has a number of defects. I contend the procedures to be followed should be set out in greater detail in the Bill — perhaps it is my lawyer's training — but I do believe that these should be matters for judicial decision rather than decision by an Ombudsman or tribunal which does not have a judicial presence. I believe also we must tackle the question of any rights that might be attached to the families of people who might successfully apply for asylum. Having said all of that, the Bill is positive in its thrust and I welcome it.

The House will be aware that the Programme for Government included the following commitment on this matter.

Our policy towards the treatment of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants will meet the highest international standards. Procedures will be introduced to guarantee the rights of hearings, appeals, access to legal advice and access to the courts.

That commitment in the Programme for Government was included at the behest of my party. I want to re-state that commitment on behalf of the Labour Party. This is a matter of considerable urgency which should not be postponed any longer. If the Minister is willing to give the House an undertaking to return immediately with an alternative Bill I shall be happy to accept such undertaking. However, to be quite frank, I believe there is much in this Bill deserving of consideration. I would ask the Minister to give some thought to the possibility of passing it to Committee Stage for further consideration. At that stage obviously it would be possible for amendments to be tabled which might deal with some of the objections raised by the Department. Alternatively, the Minister might ask that the matter be adjourned pending production of her own Bill.

All of us are agreed, and certainly we in the Labour Party are in no doubt, that this is a matter of urgency affecting basic human rights. I believe all parties in the House support the broad intent of the Bill. All that remains to be decided is the exact procedure we should adopt. I would ask the Minister for Justice to be flexible in that regard.

Mr. Killeen

I understand the humanitarian concerns which prompted the introduction of this Private Members' Bill by Deputy Shatter. I find myself disposed sympathetically to those principles and, along with Deputy Derek McDowell, would welcome a Bill introduced by the Minister herself, which I expect will be the case.

I have a number of concerns about this Bill, principally that one of its effects might be the undermining of the protection afforded genuine refugees under the terms of the United Nations Convention on Refugees. My worry is based to a substantial extent on the experience of those countries that have dealt with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, when I understand that of the order of 90 per cent of the cases referred were found to be bogus.

It is important that we in this House define the term "refugee'. We would need to draw a distinction between the case of a person fleeing a regime which threatened his life and that of his family and another who may seek to begin a new living or economic opportunity in a western country. It would be delightful were we in a position to welcome all comers under all headings. Unfortunately, that is not the case. There are very substantial costs involved in looking after the needs of genuine refugees. We have been found wanting in many instances.

The proposers of this Bill will be aware also of the extent of the financial obligations these provisions would place on the State. In the short term, we should seek to ensure that the relatively scarce resources available are put to use in catering for the needs of those who are in specific need of protection. Deputy Carey outlined some of the experiences we have had in County Clare arising from our proximity to Shannon Airport.

Debate adjourned.