Deputy Tony Killeen is in possession and he has 17 minutes left.
Private Members' Business. - Refugee Protection Bill, 1993: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle agus ba mhaith liom cuid ama a roinnt leis an Teachta Ben Briscoe.
Last week I outlined my concern at the implications for the provision for genuine refugees arising from the unrestricted entry provisions in the Bill. The Minister indicated that the Department had consultations with a view to reviewing the situation. Before the debate adjourned I had mentioned Deputy Carey's interest in refugees and complimented him on his attempts on their behalf. Unfortunately, Deputy Carey misunderstood one of the points I made in relation to the cost implications of the provisions outlined in this Bill. I was merely pointing out that unrestricted entry would have enormous cost implications for the State and would also reduce the amount of State provision for genuine refugees. We all recognise that State provision must be made for them and that there is a need to update the procedures used in this country.
The Minister mentioned that the tribunal system has some merits. I welcome that. The greatest weakness in our system to date has been the doubt about whether people who entered the country were refugees and the fact that they were forced to leave the jurisdiction before it had been established independently and to the satisfaction of people who have taken an interest in the case, that they were not refugees. This points to the necessity for the tribunal system in the immediate short term. Of course, any unilateral action by this country in relation to unrestrained access would be counter-productive and would have enormous social implications.
What has unrestrained access to do with anything in this Bill? The contributions from that side of the House are pathetic.
If we were to adopt lax procedures we would create an even greater problem. It is important to bear in mind that an international convention governs this area. Ireland has from the fifties, been bound by this and has sought the assistance of the London office in deciding whether people are refugees. I commend the Department of Justice for its ready response——
Of imprisoning them.
——in the only instance in which I have been involved. While other Deputies may not have had the same experience, the Department was most forthcoming and helpful in regard to the instance in which I was involved.
The Deputy should not have had to intervene.
I look forward to the Minister's initiative in the general area.
If you are an alien contact your local Fianna Fáil TD to be treated properly — a new international concept.
I am readily accessible to members of the public and I am not judgmental with regard to whether they might be members of my constituency.
If the system was working properly the Deputy should not have to intervene.
The Deputy should be allowed to make his speech without interruption.
I look forward to the Minister's initiative. There is a need for a review which the Minister acknowledges. Deputy Shatter's proposal has some merit but I look forward to the proposals from the Department of Justice.
Most of us on this side of the House welcome the Bill.
Will the Deputy vote for it?
Will the Deputy allow me to make my own speech? Maybe I am like a red rag as she constantly interrupts me.
This is a serious problem which affects peoples lives. People like Deputy Shatter and I, who belong to a minority religion, realise what it is to be in a country where, irrespective of race, religion or creed, if one deserves an honour one gets it, but it behoves us not to forget minorities who are persecuted in other parts of the world. We must care for such people. The Minister has applauded the spirit of Deputy Shatter's Bill. If the Bill has succeeded in doing anything it has hastened the introduction of legislation from this Government, which was outlined in the Programme for a Partnership Government.
Regardless of whether it is deserved, the perception of the Department of Justice is that it is unsympathetic to foreigners. Over the years I made representations to the Department on behalf of people from Libya, Sudan and Pakistan and I was disappointed not to get a response from it. I made representations once on behalf of a Pakistani lady who was attempting to get her husband into Ireland. I got no response despite further representations and, finally, one day the lady showed me a letter sent to her husband by a Member of the British House of Commons from the Irish Ambassador to the Court of St. James stating that the Department of Justice had refused a visa to her husband to come to Ireland. I was furious and wrote to the Secretary of the Department of Justice stating it was obvious that the Department paid more attention to Members of a foreign Parliament than to Members of our Parliament and that whereas the British MPs' queries were answered, I had been ignored. I got a letter of apology and the lady got her visa. It indicated that it was a stroke of good fortune for her that things had happened that way and that the Department has the capacity to make decisions, apparently on no basis other than the humour of the person on a particular day.
With regard to a lady from South Africa who had been living here for eight years, her file got lost. She had made representations to the Aliens department where, according to her, she had been treated with great indifference and a lack of understanding and warmth. The case was reopened and a new file prepared but I did not hear whether that person was granted Irish citizenship. I assume she is a naturalised Irish citizen.
The number of foreigners allowed to remain here is growing and one wonders whether it is because they have money. Obviously the State is much more sympathetic to people who can support themselves and, therefore, will not be a burden on the State. It is well known that many people who come here are put into prison. If somebody arrives with forged documentation or attempts to deceive officials here I agree they cannot be accepted as a refugee in the true sense of the word. If people disembark at Shannon or Dublin Airport and plead asylum for fear of being executed or put in prison if they return to their own country they must not be put in prison. Of course it is different if they are illegal, have been caught with forged documentation and are making a plea to the courts, I would not argue that case. However, we must create new perceptions. The feeling is that the Department of Justice is a state within a state, that, irrespective of what Members of this House say or do, it does not really matter. One gets the feeling that even Ministers of the day are limited in what they can do within their own Departments.
The Deputy can teach them a lesson by voting for this Bill.
It is not a question of teaching anybody a lesson. The Bill is welcome and I compliment Deputy Shatter on its introduction. He was the first person to have two Private Members' Bills accepted by the Government. I have never heard that happening anywhere else——
Why not make it a third time?
When Fine Gael was in Government it did not accept a Bill from the Opposition.
It is a tribute to his work.
Let us try to deal with this in a dignified way.
Order, a time limit applies to this debate and interruptions are most unwelcome, if not disorderly. Deputy Briscoe to continue without interruption.
I do not mind being interrupted——
Do not invite it, Deputy, please.
——when we are on other business but not on this Bill because it is not funny for people who are trying to get to this country to escape the horror of war. It is not the intention that anybody who is not a refugee would be allowed in. I have a jaundiced view of how the United Nations High Commission for Refugees applies the laws. A Palestinian who has been in Ireland for more than five or six years called on me and was seeking Irish citizenship. Under a United Nations resolution these people cannot be naturalised by any other country because the people who vote for this resolution each year want them to be political pawns. The United Nations has much to answer for in that regard and many of their decisions are political. Where a person has been allowed to live in a country for more than five years he or she should be accepted as a naturalised citizen. I am not saying Ireland should open the floodgates and allow thousands of people in when we already have in excess of 250,000 people unemployed. Unfortunately we cannot do that.
The generosity of the Irish people was demonstrated recently in their desire to welcome the children of refugees from countries where there is so-called ethnic cleansing. I hope something will be done soon to allow these people to move to countries where they can be with their families.
Deputies who have not done so should read Ireland 1939-1989 by Professor Dermot Keogh which deals with emigration and the acceptance or non-acceptance of refugees to this country and in which he outlines some grave injustices. I hope when a book is written on Ireland 1989-2039 that similar injustices will not be listed.
I am glad that this Bill is before the House and that the Government has taken it seriously. I compliment the Minister on her intention to introduce a Bill, following consultation with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, containing similar provisions to those in Deputy Shatter's Bill. I am sure Deputy Shatter is not too vain to accept it may be possible to improve on this Bill in the interest of humanity.
Unfortunately there was no commitment from the Minister to introduce a Bill.
I wish to share my time with my colleague, Deputy John Connor.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I did not intend to interrupt Deputy Briscoe in a malicous way, I merely wanted to give him an opportunity to tell us that he would support this Bill because his contribution was positive. It is reprehensible that the reasons advanced by the Minister and other spokespersons for the Government for not supporting this Bill are that it contains flaws and inadequacies and does not go far enough. This Bill is not being accepted because it was brought forward by a member of the Opposition. The Minister put forward the case that it was not the practice to accept Bills from the Opposition. That is blatantly untrue because Deputy Shatter — as Deputy Briscoe said — has had the honour of having two of his Bills accepted by this House — the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989, and the Adoption Act, 1991. Therefore, a precedent has already been set. If the Government is committed to the refugee problem as stated in the Programme for a Partnership Government 1993-1997 as follows: “Our policy towards treatment of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants will meet the highest international standards. Procedures will be introduced to guarantee rights of hearings, appeal, access to legal advice and access to the courts;” why will it not accept this Bill, allow it to go before the new Select Committee on Legislation and Security and bring forward the necessary amendments to improve it?
Deputy Shatter is willing to accept amendments which the Minister and her Department officials advise are required. This Bill will be voted down by the very people who gathered in the National Concert Hall and elsewhere to endorse this programme. If I were a Labour or a Fianna Fáil Deputy I would hang my head in shame if I spoke against this Bill. Last week Deputy Derek McDowell questioned why he should not be able to vote for this Bill. I find it reprehensible that in the past week the Government has not found the generosity of spirit to accept this Bill and vote for it tomorrow night. Let the Government put in amendments, but vote for it. Are we not lightening their workload by having this Bill framed?
The 1951 UN Convention binds Ireland to fulfil all the obligations and duties, and the Minister said in 1990, in answer to a Dáil question put by me that legislation was not required. Last week this Minister appeared to be saying that legislation may well be required but she has given no commitment in regard to it.
The Minister said: "My approach to this review will be guided by humanitarian considerations and the House can be assured that I will take whatever steps are necessary, including any necessary legislation." It is clear that since 1990 the advice has been that in order to fulfil our duties and obligations under the UN Convention legislation is required.
If, as the Minister appeared to say, all that Deputy Shatter is looking for are in place, why was it necessary to put into the Programme for Government that procedures will be introduced to guarantee rights of hearing, appeal, access to legal advice and access to courts? If they are in place and working well, why is the Minister condemning the Opposition for daring to cast aspersions on officials in Shannon and elsewhere? If they are in place why was it necessary to put that statement into the Programme for Government? It is because the procedures are not working effectively. Why must Deputies receive heartbreaking letters from the public after they have watched programmes about refugees coming to Ireland? The following quotation is from a letter sent by an elderly woman in County Galway:
These are strangers in a strange land. At the best of times that is a little scarey. But on top of it, they are alone, knowing no one, no family.
And this is the strange land — a land where hospitality is in our very soul's fibres and these strangers are left for months and years to feed on their very real fears and nightmares, and are totally at our mercy. They have nothing, are allowed to go nowhere, are treated like criminals. What are we becoming?
That is a cry from the heart of an elderly woman in Galway who was moved to write that letter after she watched "Wednesday Report" about refugees who are awaiting word from our Department. If the system is working as well as the Minister tries to tell us it is, why do people have to write letters like that? Why are they ashamed to be Irish, ashamed of the way we are treating people who are looking for asylum?
We are two-faced in our attitude to applicants for refugee asylum. Members of the Government go on deputations to the United States and get down on bended knees to various Senators and to Presidents to beg and cajole them to make our citizens legal in their country, to allocate a special quota and allow them to have the right of American citizenship. We do that every year and we have been successful. We have received great co-operation from the Americans with regard to Irish citizens.
It is not, as Deputy Killeen implied, that hundreds of people are applying to Ireland for refugee asylum. The number involved each year is small, about 50. That does not represent a deluge or huge procession. What results come from those applications? I should like to refer to some of the figures provided in answer to parliamentary questions in November 1990. The number of applications for asylum in 1986 was 19 and the number granted was four. The number of applications in 1987 was 50 and — for some reason that year was a good year — 15 were granted. The number of applications in 1988 was 49 and two were granted. In 1989 36 applied and one was granted. In 1990 48 applied and none were granted.
Instead we have the shame of newspaper stories and television programmes about people who have been prosecuted in other countries because of their political or religious beliefs. When they come here we put them in prison taking up places that are badly needed for real criminals. We subject them to the indignity of locking them away as if they were criminals. They are totally dependent on the goodwill of an individual or small group of people who espouse their cause and highlight it in a way that brings shame on us. Deputies have often had to raise the matter in the House.
The attitude tonight is, at best, sad. At worst I sense elements of racism and xenophobia; we do not want to open our doors. I understand that on a television programme last night, which I did not see, the spokesperson for Fianna Fáil implied that if we did open our doors to a number of these applicants we might have to look after them, provide some resources for them; God forbid, we might even have to house them and maybe pay them social welfare. That person wondered if we have not got enough to look after our own.
Do Deputies realise from whence many of these refugee asylum seekers come? They come from countries where there are no human rights, no facilities to express oneself publicly or to have political views that differ from those of the Government in power. We say to them that we do not want anybody except good, clean Irish people in Ireland and that we have enough to do to look after our own. One has to weigh up what we do with regard to granting asylum against the generosity of countries whose percapita income is something like 200 dollars a year, like Zambia or Malawi in Africa. In Malawi alone they have given refuge, resources, food and so on to more than one million refugees from Mozambique. I visited the refugee camps in Zambia. That country is bowed down with economic problems and huge unemployment. They have hundreds of thousands of refugees from neighbouring countries and are giving them help. They are giving them food when they hardly have enough for their own people. They welcome the refugees with open arms and allow them live in Zambia for years. Those refugees cannot return to their own countries. They do not necessarily have to go through a legal process but they are given refuge. What do we do? We put them inside a jail or inside a plane as soon as they land in Shannon. Within hours most of them are back on the plane.
I accept, as the Minister rightly pointed out, that some people seeking asylum were clearly not asylum seekers and should not be allowed in. Our procedures should sort out those applications, but we should not condemn all asylum seekers as not genuine. If the procedures are working, as the Minister said, why are these people here illegally hiding in the houses of generous Irish people from the State as if they were common criminals? Months, and sometimes years, later they are told to leave. I remember highlighting a case of two young Ethiopian women — I put down a Dáil Question about them — who after being a year and a half hiding in Ireland — were afraid of being stopped on the street and questioned about whether they had any right to be here. They were terrified and that was 18 months after they had made their application for asylum. The Minister, Deputy Burke, gave me a one line reply to my question, that their cases was under investigation. Are they the procedures we boast about or that the Minister boasted about last week? After 18 months two young women under 25 years of age who had to flee their own country because of fear of death and persecution were told that their case was still under investigation. We must accept responsibility and face up to what we should be doing.
The Minister said the necessary legislation would be introduced but she made no promises. On 8 March 1991 there was a report in The Irish Times by the diplomatic correspondent. Colm Boland, of a meeting between the then Minister for Justice, Deputy Burke, and Mr. Frank Krenz, the new representative for the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. Mr. Krenz had already presented his credentials to the then Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Calleary. The report stated:
Mr. Krenz said yesterday, that while Ireland had signed and ratified the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees, no special legislation had been passed in this country or regulations made to implement its provisions, as was the case in Britain and other European countries.
Mr. Krenz said that while he would not say the matter was dealt with in an arbitrary manner, it seemed to remain "a discretionary thing" in the hands of the Minister for Justice.
This Bill seeks to remove that discretionary element in regard to asylum seekers from the Minister for Justice and place it on a statutory basis so that the Minister will not be open to criticism about refugees and asylum seekers not being treated properly.
The report goes on:
He would like Irish regulations to provide formal procedures to deal with people who present themselves as refugees from persecution on political, religious or racial grounds. People should be entitled to have an interpreter [for which provision is made in Deputy Shatter's Bill] and be informed of their right to legal representation [which is also provided for in Deputy Shatter's Bill]. There should also be some form of independent appeal system against the refusal of asylum and deportation.
Again, this is provided for in Deputy Shatter's Bill. The report goes on:
A spokesman for the Department of Justice said that Mr. Burke's meeting with Mr. Krenz had been merely a courtesy call. There had been some discussion concerning regulations about refugees.
The Minister for Justice and her officials still seem to hold this view that somehow we can continue to hide behind a set of procedures that have given rise to the type of cases raised by the Minister of State and Deputies Carey, Briscoe and Killeen. We should not have to raise those cases here if the procedures were working properly.
The present system was set up by Deputy Noonan in 1985.
Deputy Briscoe should not intervene in this manner.
Deputy Noonan's signature was on that system.
I want a firm commmitment from the Minister that we will play our part in giving asylum to not just single refugees who come here seeking asylum, but large groups of refugees, particularly from countries presently undergoing strife. A country as small as Austria has approximately 100,000 Bosnian refugees on their soil and they have complaints. They are assisting those people. We managed to take approximately 170 refugees last year and there was great fanfare and publicity given to it. Shame on us, that is not much to do for people who are being persecuted and killed in their thousands. I hope we can hold our head high in EC, Amnesty International and UN fora and say we are not found wanting in giving the kind of asylum requested by many people in this world. I know it will be difficult for Deputy Kemmy, who is present tonight, to cross the floor and vote against this Bill. I hope that by tomorrow night there may be a change of heart, but if there is not a total change of heart I would at least like to see a free vote for Government Deputies who wish to support the Bill.
(Interruptions.)
There must be no intervention from the people in the Gallery.
In keeping with the sentiments expressed from the Gallery, of which you. Sir, might disapprove, I commend my colleague, Deputy Owen, for her contribution.
That matter may not be adverted to.
It has been.
In her concluding remarks Deputy Owen stated that she hoped this country would be able to hold its head high at, for example, EC fora in which we are proud to participate. We cannot hold our head high on this issue in EC or UN fora.
As stated by many Deputies, we are signatories to the United Nations Convention, 1951, but since we signed that Convention in 1951 we have done nothing legislatively to bring into effect the spirit in the letter of that Convention. For the first time in the law of this land Deputy Shatter's Bill set out to define a refugee. This Bill would provide refugees with something to which they could clutch when appealing against expulsions and from which their advocates in court could cite as being part of the law. The Bill deals with a basic issue of human rights and this country prides itself on its reputation in the area of human rights. We are certainly sullying our reputation by what has taken place in this House in the past couple of weeks. I do not know how Members of the Labour Party, especially the chairman of that party, who is present tonight and has a good record on issues of human rights, will be able in conscience to vote against this Bill.
Hear, hear.
It is easy for Deputy Briscoe to make a promise that the Minister for Justice will introduce a Bill, but I do not believe that. I tabled a question to the Minister in that regard two months ago and it is clear she is satisfied with the procedures at present.
Amnesty International has been very active in this whole area, not just here but worldwide. That organisation has set down approximately ten fundamental principles in relation to asylum seekers which any civilised Government should have on its Statute Book. It recommends that all asylum seekers, in whatever manner they arrive within the jurisdiction of a State, must be referred to the body responsible for deciding on claims for asylum. How do we measure up in that regard? The body with which asylum seekers come into contact here is the officials of the Department of Justice. I do not wish to be critical of the officials in that Department but they are not trained to deal with refugees and asylum seekers. They usually——
There should be no reflection on officials. The Minister is responsible. It is a convention of this House that we do not blame officials. The Minister is responsible.
I am attributing no blame to or making a reflection on the officials.
Neither praise nor blame should be attached.
It is impossible not to refer to the people who deal with refugees and I believe it is within the rules of this House that I should make that point. However, I would like to put on record that the blame for those problems rests with the Minister. The personnel designated to deal with refugees and asylum seekers are not in a position to do so. Generally speaking, they may not know the language or political background of such refugees or asylum seekers, but that is not their fault. Since 1978 a number of people have come here from Sri Lanka and no official of the Department could be expected to be au fait with a minority world language such as that spoken by Tamils or Sinhales.
The officials should be left out of it.
I find that impossible because I am dealing with reality and it is regrettable that Members of this House cannot deal with the realities as they exist on the ground.
It is a long standing convention of this House that officials should not be reflected on either by way of praise or blame. The Minister is responsible.
I hold the Minister fully responsible and I have gone out of my way to make that point.
Amnesty International says that the body responsible for deciding on claims for asylum must be an independent and specialised authority whose sole and exclusive responsibility should be to examine and make decisions on asylum claims. I do not wish to incur your wrath, Sir, but we fail totally in that regard. We do not have an independent body to deal with asylum seekers.
Amnesty International makes the point that the decision makers of that independent body must have expertise in international refugee law and international human rights law. Their status and tenure should afford the strongest possible guarantees of their competence, impartiality and independence. How do we measure up on that? I suggest we do not measure up at all. Amnesty International makes the point also that the decision makers of that independent body must be provided with the services of a documentation office whose task should be to impartially collect and provide them with objective and independent information on the human rights situation in the asylum seekers' countries of origin or any country to which they might be sent. How do we measure up on that? The Minister knows we do not measure up in this regard at all.
In order to obtain additional information on some of these points I telephoned the Department of Foreign Affairs today where I was dealt with politely. I was informed that its role in the refugees/asylum area involved dealing with refugees who come here following a Government decision — for example, the Bosnian refugees referred to by Deputy Owen. I was given any information I needed in relation to them, but in regard to the 40, 50 or 60 single asylum seekers or refugees who arrive here on an annual basis they are dealt with by the aliens section of the Department of Justice. I was told to contact the Department of Justice. I rang the Minister's office and was very politely received by the Minister's private secretary or somebody working with the Minister's private secretary. I stated my business — that was probably foolish of me — that I intended to speak to this motion this evening. A silence ensued during which time somebody was sought to advise me. Approximately three minutes later the speaker returned to me that they were very sorry but that nobody was available to speak to me.
Yet another example of open Government.
It never changed. It was the same in the Deputy's time.
This is the Government of change.
The Deputy should read his own programme.
That is why the Deputy put down the Bill.
One of the questions put to me was whether I was speaking on behalf of the Government or for the motion. I stated what I intended to do. It was then that the decision was taken that nobody was available to speak to me.
Shameful. The Minister should take this matter up with his Department. This should not be allowed.
Any Member of this House is entitled to the advice of Departments of Government and of the public servants of this country. They are not the preserve of any one party in this House.
Thanks to the Labour Party they are becoming the preserve of one party.
I am reluctant to make that complaint but that has been my experience today and I consider it to be of serious enough import to raise it in this House tonight.
Amnesty International make the point that all asylum seekers must benefit at all stages of the procedure from the right to legal counsel and interpreters, and the right to have contact and to have access to the UNHCR. That is simply not so. We do not afford those rights to such persons entering this country. This is another of the fundamental principles laid down by Amnesty International — the people in the best position to know about this issue — in regard to which we are found wanting and are utterly condemned.
Amnesty International state that asylum claims should be examined at first instance through a personal appearance by every asylum seeker before the decision makers of the independent body where there would be a thorough examination of the circumstances of each case. If I may return to what I said earlier, a person here is interviewed by an immigration officer who takes notes from an asylum seeker. I understand the immigration officer returns his notes to an official in the Department of Justice. Based upon those notes, and in the absence of a personal appearance before him by the asylum seeker, the decision is taken by the Minister, who willingly, and I am sure on many occasions gleefully, signs the order refusing the person admittance to this country. It appears that in 95 per cent of cases his decision is that the person may not be admitted here. In relation to the fundamental principles laid down for dealing with such people, it is a great pity that such a gap exists between what we give lip service to as being desirable and what in fact we do.
I wish to refer to the reply to a Dáil question given to me and my colleague, Deputy Shatter, on 17 February 1993 in which we asked when the Minister for Justice would introduce the necessary legislation to ensure the application of fair procedures for persons seeking asylum here. The Minister stated:
The 1985 agreement with the UNHCR provides for the following: (a) asylum seekers will not be refused entry or removed from the State until they are given an opportunity to present a case fully;
That is simply not so. The Minister goes on to say that every application is examined in accordance with the 1951 UN Convention. How could they be examined in accordance with the 1951 UN Convention when we do not have the legislative procedures here to examine them? The Minister goes on to state:
This does not prevent humanitarian considerations being considered which might justify permission to remain in the State. I know of very few cases where that applies. Every facility, including interpreters where possible [That is a nice qualification on the Minister's part] is provided to help an applicant in making a case.
That is patently untrue. The Minister makes the point of the need for confidentiality and privacy and that is given a high priority. I cannot comment fully on that.
Privacy in prison.
Yes, I am sure there will be a lot of privacy in prison. The Minister continues:
An applicant is informed that he may contact UNHCR or its local representative.
Unfortunately, we do not have a local representative of the UNHCR. If my information is correct the closest one to us is in London. Therefore, an unfortunate person who may not even speak our language will be told by someone speaking in English that he or she can contact the UNHCR 500 or 700 miles away, depending on whether one is in Dublin or Shannon. The difficulty is obvious. Therefore, there is hypocrisy, as well as misleading information in the Minister's reply.
I must ask the Deputy to conclude.
I wish to say one further thing. The Minister makes the point that each applicant is given a personal interview. I am sure an interview of some kind does take place.
I must remind the Deputy that this is Private Members' Time.
The Minister went on to state:
The UNHCR and the Department of Foreign Affairs are consulted on each application.
Following my friendly and informative conversation with the Department of Foreign Affairs today, it would appear they have a very small role in cases such as this.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Kemmy.
Agreed? Agreed.
I am grateful for his opportunity to speak on the Government's policy in relation to refugees and asylum seekers. I want to emphasise, as the Minister for Justice did in her response last Wednesday to Deputy Shatter's Bill, that the Government fully supports the spirit and thrust of the Bill. It is the Government's policy to ensure that those who are entitled to recognition as refugees are granted such recognition in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees. It has always been the Government's policy to adopt a positive approach in considering applications for refugees status and the issue now is what we can do to improve the arrangements for dealing with these cases. It is manifestly right that arrangements like these, which affect people's rights in a very real and significant way, should be subjected to review to ensure that they are characterised by efficiency and humanity and, of course, that they meet international norms.
The House will be aware of the commitments contained in the Programme for Partnership in Government in relation to refugees and asylum seekers and the Minister for Justice has already confirmed that she will be taking whatever action may be appropriate, including any necessary legislation, in order to meet those commitments.
There is one point I would also like to emphasise at this stage. This is a point which has been made by the Minister but which tends to be lost sight of again as the debate progresses. There are procedures already in existence for dealing with applications for refugee status. These procedures have been in existence since 1985 when a formal agreement was drawn up between the Department of Justice on the one hand and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees on the other. The important point to note is that last July the Supreme Court held that this agreement, which provides for facilities for asylum seekers to make their case and for examination of such cases by appropriate officials, was enforceable in Irish law.
These procedures, as the Minister has already informed the House, are very specific and extensive. They provide for every aspect of the arrangements for dealing with applications for refugee status from initial stage of the application, which is usually made to an immigration officer on arrival, to the stage where an applicant is recognised, or not, as a refugee and is informed accordingly.
The key-element in the whole procedure, of course, is that each and every application is referred to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. They are the experts in this area and they are effectively, the decision-making body in so far as the State is concerned as to whether an applicant qualifies for refugee status in accordance with the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees. The Department of Foreign Affairs is also consulted. It is a fact that no Minister for Justice, from either side of the House, has ever disagreed with the opinion of the UN High Commission for Refugees where it has been their view that an applicant is entitled to refugee status. Every decision in real terms is made by the Minister for Justice personally, who relies heavily on the advice of the UN High Commission in order to come to a decision.
I am not repeating this point in order to give the impression that there is nothing that requires examination. I am repeating it because I believe it is important that people who may need to avail of the procedures would be left in no doubt that they exist and are applied. What Deputies are concerned about essentially — and it applies on this side of the House as much as on the other—is that we make the arrangements applying to refugees as fair and user friendly as possible and that we remove anxiety relating to their operation. Obviously, it is of no assistance to those concerned if they are left under their impression that there is no fairness and no procedures as things stand.
I come back to the point that since the procedures have existed since 1985 it is necessary that each of them be considered in detail to ensure that they meet the needs of today. To that end a comprehensive review is being carried out. This review will touch on every area covered by the procedures—from the training of immigration officers to ensure that the sensitive initial stage of dealing with applicants meets our objectives, to the final stage when an application has been successful and it is necessary to consider how best a refugee can be integrated into our society, if that is what he or she wants.
The Government's approach to this review will be guided by humanitarian considerations with the primary purpose of ensuring that the State's obligations with regard to the rights of refugees are satisfactorily provided for to meet the needs of today.
I think it would be helpful to the House if I were to specify particular improvements which are being pursued in this matter because the House is clearly, and rightly, interested in positive action. In the first place the Minister for Justice has already been in touch with the Garda authorities with regard to an examination of training needs to allow for the updating and preparation of a specific training programme for the Garda Síochána in the area of aliens controls generally. The Minister has underlined her wish that specialised courses be further developed for immigration officers and gardaí employed on duties related to aliens as part of that programme and it is her intention that asylum procedures will feature prominently in any such training courses. The initial Garda response has been constructive and further discussions will be taking place in order to develop this area further.
Secondly, the Minister for Justice has also been in touch with her colleague, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, with a view to ensuring that persons effectively granted asylum here are assisted in whatever way possible to integrate into our society and that any barriers in their way to doing so are removed. It is the Minister's intention also that the terms of reference to the refugee agency, which is the agency founded by the State to assist with groups of refugees, be examined with a view to ensuring that there are no impediments in its way to assisting in individual cases. The agency was established primarily to assist with groups of refugees, such as the Vietnamese boat people and the displaced persons from the former Yugoslavia; but the Minister is of the view that perhaps more can be done to assist where necessary with individual cases which are not part of any group.
Thirdly, the Minister has decided to act on a specific matter she promised within the past week. In her response last Wednesday the Minister referred to one important proposal in Deputy Shatter's Bill which does not feature in the existing procedures, the proposal for a refugee appeals tribunal. The Minister emphasised her concern to ensure that whatever procedures are in existence are transparent and the subject of public satisfaction.
At long last.
She indicated that she would be giving particular attention to that aspect of the matter and, having done so, it is her considered view that on balance there is a genuine need for an appeals mechanism in the procedures.
With that in mind the Minister has asked me to say that it is her intention to appoint immediately a retired member of the Judiciary to act as a competent authority to deal with appeals against refusals to grant recognition of refugee status. That appointment will be made in the next few days with a view to acting as an appeals authority pending the completion of the review of the existing procedures. The Minister does not wish to prejudge the outcome of that review and——
Will the Minister advise how the appeal system will work and what status the judge will have?
——at this point envisages that the proposed appointment will be an interim one pending the formal establishment in the near future of a more defined forum for dealing with such appeals.
It is the Government's overall intention that the outcome of the review of the general procedures will be in keeping with our respected traditions of social justice and human rights. It will be guided by humanitarian considerations to ensure protection for the genuine refugee when he or she seeks sanctuary here. It will of course also take account of the expert opinion of the UN High Commission for Refugees.
Finally, while it is not directly related to the contents of the Bill currently before the House, there has been an important development in the whole area of non-Irish people who are resident here and persons who apply for refugee status which the House should know about. The Government has decided to appoint an interdepartmental committee of senior officials who will examine policy and practices in these areas and who will make recommendations based on their findings.
This is coincidental.
The terms of reference of the committee will be wide ranging——
It is up to the Law Reform Commission as well.
——and comprehensive and the committee will be expected to report as soon as possible, but certainly not later than the autumn.
A Cheann Comhairle, I would like to acknowledge that the very best of motives motivated Deputy Shatter in putting forward this Bill. I know the genuine sentiments that lie behind that action and behind the concerned and compassionate contributions which have been made from all sides of the House on this issue.
The UN High Commission has very generously agreed to assist the Minister for Justice in the review of the existing procedures and that offer has been accepted. Pending the completion of that review it would be somewhat unwise to proceed with legislation, especially until the Minister has the benefit of the expert advice offered by the UN High Commission. For that reason, and while fully accepting the principle and good intent of Deputy Shatter's Bill, the Government is opposing it.
At this stage we will be opposing the Bill for the reasons we have outlined. It is not that we are against the principle of the Bill but we will be taking the appropriate measures, including legislation if necessary, when we have concluded our review of the existing procedures with the assistance of the United Nations High Commission.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important matter and I am pleased with the encouragement given by Fine Gael in this regard. I do not need much encouragement to speak on this issue. I welcome Deputy Shatter's initiative. This is not the first time I have said that in the House, as Deputy Shatter's two previous Bills made history. However, if Deputy Shatter were to say today is Tuesday that would not make it Wednesday or Thursday and if he introduces good legislation I would be the first Deputy to stand up in the Dáil and acknowledge and commend him for his work, and I do not need any help from anybody in that regard. I am against play acting, histrionics and crocodile tears. They solve nothing. Some Deputies have short memories. Deputy Noonan was Minister for Justice when a substantial review of asylum seekers and refugees was undertaken here. The legislation and procedures under which we are now working were introduced by Deputy Noonan eight years ago.
They are no longer working.
Deputies should keep that in mind. Shadow boxing and throwing shapes will achieve nothing. Last week I commended the work of Senator Neville——
The Labour Party has become very much like Fianna Fáil.
Deputy Kemmy, without interruption.
I can heckle as well as the Deputy. He should not push his luck. I praised Deputy Shatter earlier but I can use other tactics also.
I came here to give a reasoned account of my party's view on this issue and I do not welcome the heckling from Deputy Shatter as it spoils what I said earlier about him.
This is a serious matter and should not be dealt with in a frivolous way. I mentioned last week the pioneering work of Senator Neville in the Seanad on the issue of suicide. His work there has been epoch-making and very important in regard to dealing with this issue. Senator Neville dealt with the issue of suicide long before it was considered a major issue in this House. I am against mischief making. I have some experience in relation to the issue of asylum seekers and refugees as I live in a city close to Shannon airport where many asylum seekers and refugees enter the country. I am aware of the problems of those who seek refuge in our country. The world is an unsettled place and man's inhumanity to man does not stop in one country; unfortunately, it extends around the world. Deputy Briscoe, who is here tonight, could speak at some length about the disgraceful treatment of people who tried to leave Hitler's Germany in the last world war. They were the first boat people, of which I am aware, the boat people do not come just from Vietnam, but I will not go into that as it is a matter on which I could speak at length and it might not be relevant. This is a worldwide problem and does not relate just to one country. Nobody can afford to be judgmental and throw stones in regard to that issue. I have not come into the House tonight to do that.
Hundreds of thousands of people are forced to leave their homes and countries every year. This is an unhappy fact of life. They are forced out for a variety of reasons — fear for their personal safety or that of their families, threats, intimidation, oppression, conflicts, civil wars, tribal wars, etc. The fundamental rights of these people are trampled on and violated. I am not referring to people who leave their own countries to seek employment, they are economic refugees. The other refugees flee their countries by land, sea and air, often at great personal risk to themselves and endure long, arduous and hazardous journeys.
Apart from the Vietnamese refugees, an average of 50 refugees seek asylum here every year. A person's right to asylum is set out in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has been quoted in the House this evening. According to the 1951 Geneva Convention and the 1967 Protocol, an asylum seeker is a person who "owing to a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group of political opinion is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country". In addition to signing the 1951 Convention, this country has an informal agreement with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees on procedures to be followed in the event of a person claiming political asylum. However, the 1951 Convention has no legal basis in Irish law and the informal agreement with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees is not always applied in a uniform or even handed way, as I can testify. There is an urgent need for fair and just procedures which can be followed in the event of people seeking asylum here. They must also be guaranteed access to legal advice and interpreters with proper experience.
I wish to refer to some of my experiences in this area. Many refugees fly into Shannon Airport on Aeroflot flights. Events in Yugoslavia and Eastern Europe have led to an increase in the number of people seeking refuge in this country. These people often end up in a Garda station or prison. In more recent times they have been given refuge in houses in Ennis and Newmarket-on-Fergus, County Clare, where they are cared for by the Red Cross. I commend Amnesty, who have contacted me on numerous occasions about these issues, for the work they have done. This organisation works under difficult conditions and often has to deal with convoluted and complicated laws and procedures. It provides legal advice for refugees; solicitors often travel from Dublin to Limerick to deal with these cases. These solicitors have to try to overcome red tape and bureaucracy. They have had meetings with public representatives, including Deputy Carey and me, on these issues. Many telephone calls have been made to the Department of Justice, sometimes to no avail, as the people seeking asylum are sent home on the next flight. These people work hard in difficult conditions.
I also wish to pay tribute to the Red Cross which has engaged in fund raising activities and provided caring and compassionate homes for approximately 20 refugees in County Clare.
Are they now legal?
I have first hand experience of the work carried out by these people in County Clare.
I have met refugees, many of whom were confused and felt alienated and lonely. Anyone who has emigrated knows how difficult it is to adapt to life in a strange country. Many of these refugees do not speak English, and they are often cold, hungry and disorientated. I can give numerous examples of refugees from China, Sri Lanka and other countries who have sought asylum in this country. However, there is no point in going on at length about this issue.
To me and my party the granting of asylum in another country is a fundamental human right. There are many illegal Irish emigrants in America and we are not in any position to throw stones at anyone on his issue. We have all sought at times to have legal status granted to our illegal emigrants in America and for them to be given green cards. Some of us have assisted Irish people to emigrate to other countries, usually to America, to find employment. Therefore, none of us is in a position to throw stones at any individual on this matter.
The Labour Party has examined Deputy Shatter's Bill and we believe it goes a long way towards meeting the requirements in this area. It is a practical Bill which could be improved with a few amendments. This is a difficult and controversial time for my party and I am not here to hype the situation or to try to talk my way out of these difficulties. By improving the Bill there would be a clearcut procedure on this issue, which is not the case at present. I welcome the statements by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, and the Government's initiative in this area. It is never too late to reach a compromise. In the past previous Governments reached a compromise with the Opposition on two other Bills introduced by Deputy Shatter and I do not understand why the Minister cannot take on board some of the proposals in this Bill. I believe that both sides of the House can reach a compromise on this Bill.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
There is no need for the House to divide on his Bill. It will be a sad reflection on us if we divide on the fundamental right of people to seek asylum in this country. I do not think that would achieve anything. We are dealing with a fundamental issue of human rights and there is a need for compromise, fair play and justice. We need to look beyond this House to the people whom we represent. We will achieve nothing by dividing on this Bill and I hope a compromise can be reached before the question is put tomorrow night. It would be hypocritical for us to divide on this Bill and would achieve nothing. As chairman of the Labour Party, I ask the Minister and Deputy Shatter to try to reach a compromise on this matter.
On a point of order, when the Adoption Bill came before the House a similar speech was made by a member of another party.
I did not make it.
No, the Deputy's party was in Opposition. At that time I rose for two minutes to tell the Government that we did not want to divide on the Bill. We do not want to divide on this Bill tomorrow night, we want this Bill to move into Committee Stage where any constructive amendments proposed by the Government will be taken on board. Will the Minister of State take that message and Deputy Kemmy's proposals to his senior Minister and the Government to see if we can take an initiative tomorrow night to move the Bill into Committee Stage and put in place the reforms which we all want to resolve the problem in this area?
Deputies
Hear, hear.
My mood has lightened considerably over the last few minutes following the remarks made by Deputy Kemmy. I am delighted to think that a compromise may be reached on this Bill before the question is put tomorrow evening. I wish to share my time with my colleague, Deputy Mary Harney.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is timely that we are debating the law on asylum. Even though we are a signatory to the 1951 UN Convention and the 1967 Protocol we have no formal legislation in this area. The acceptance of this Bill would be the first step in enshrining the provisions of the Convention and Protocol into our domestic law. The Irish section of Amnesty has been lobbying for many years for improved procedures for determining if people are refugees. This Bill would enshrine improved procedures for the protection of refugees in Irish law. The people who work in this area on a voluntary basis will be very disappointed if this initiative by Deputy Shatter is defeated in a vote tomorrow night.
Many of our EC partners are in the process of harmonising the material law on asylum at present to comply with the Dublin and Schengen Conventions. It is interesting to note that EC countries have decided not to do so within the existing EC framework, that the Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice do not play any role in the application of the treaties. Because of the disparity between the definition of refugee within various countries perhaps the word "unification" might be more appropriate than "harmonisation". Perhaps at a later stage a common definition could be decided on by the European Court of Justice.
The law on asylum in Ireland is undeveloped and successive Governments have been lethargic on this issue. That is rather surprising since, if one examines the cases which have arisen here no reason is given for a positive or negative decision other than an applicant does or does not qualify as a refugee. There are no court decisions touching on matters of the material law of asylum. We need to tidy up our house and introduce well thought out legislation in this field.
The procedures and criteria for the recognition of applicants as refugees, as laid down in the hard book of the united Nations High Commission on Refugees have never been formally adopted or rejected by our authorities. However, there is some informal arrangement. Immigration officers have been furnished with guidelines based on that handbook. Those guidelines are secret, obsessively so. That is a feature of the law on asylum in Ireland, a common feature of anything to do with asylum matters and refugees. It is surprising that documents concerning asylum law are so secret since, of its nature, asylum law is a public matter and the doctrine outlining the concept of asylum and court decisions thereon are not secret. Since the countries party to the convention, including the Schengen and Dublin conventions, are democracies I cannot understand the obsessive secrecy which greets anybody who makes inquiries about asylum and, in particularly, refugee applications. What lies behind the secrecy? Is it racism or just administrative laziness? Is racism alive and well in this Chamber?
The future of our asylum law in Europe should be the subject of public debate since it is impossible to discuss secrets. We must be more concerned to have a harmonised policy on asylum law. It is not an exaggeration to say that Europe is in a state of flux in regard to the ever increasing number of refugees coming to Europe in addition to the biggest intra-European refugee problem. The present position in former Yugoslavia is one which, if the Vance-Owen proposals are accepted, could leave an estimated two million refugees.
In the past we have been articulating strong views on the humanitarian aspects of the conflict in former Yugoslavia. It is disingenuous of us to do so without having in place firm procedures or adopting a civilised approach to dealing with refugees from that conflict. If we were truly part of the community of nations to which we devote much rhetoric, we must do more than talk.
Until this evening I had been disappointed with the quality of ministerial response to Deputy Shatter's Bill, despite a commitment in the Programme for Government to introduce improved procedures. However, until this evening there had been no indication of any substantive improvement in the measures to be brought forward by the Government. I am delighted to note there has been some move in that respect. Hopefully a compromise will be reached before tomorrow evening. I would prefer if we did not have to divide on this issue. This is a humanitarian issue.
I commend Deputy Shatter on introducing the Bill. Indeed, some Fianna Fáil members who spoke last week adopted a worrying attitude. One of them said that were we to improve our procedures it would draw more refugees on us. That seemed an extraordinarily xenophobic, possibly racist attitude to adopt. We must question our credentials on racism. There is no better forum in which to have an airing of those issues than this House. That is why it is good that Deputy Shatter introduced this Bill.
I predict that in Europe there will be a harmonisation process upward rather than downward. If the definition of asylum in Europe is to become more liberal it follows that it cannot be more restrictive. Of course, this would be easier in some countries than others. For example, the German position is quite complicated because they have a constitutional provision, but we must put our own house in order.
I am glad I prepared some criticisms of Deputy Shatter's Bill because they may be incorporated in amendments which would be good news. My first and major concern about the Bill is that it does not say that those who seek asylum should not be detained pending the outcome of their application. In other words there should be a provision to the effect that, except in exceptional circumstances, an applicant should not be deprived of liberty pending the outcome of an application. I do not know why such a provision was omitted. Second, we should stipulate the method of informing an applicant of the outcome of his or her application. At present, negative or positive decisions are never given in any substantive way but rather by a mere one line statement stipulating that an applicant had or had not made the grade. Such decisions should be spelled out in detail. That is even more important in the context of the proposed appeals tribunal.
The Schengen and Dublin Conventions have not been referred to in the Bill, something that will have to be remedied. Perhaps one of reasons we receive such a small number of applications is our isolated geographic location. It is quite difficult to reach our shores to make an application for asylum. Perhaps we should be moving towards accepting an application from a person to one of our embassies in a third State. While that may be somewhat radical, we should be adopting a more generous attitude towards refugees rather than just doing the minimum. There may have been some pessimism about the establishment of an appeals tribunal to cater for such a small number of applicants but the paucity of applications should not be advanced as a reason for not putting in place good, fair and sensible procedures, particularly in a modern democracy. Indeed, the fact that we receive so few applications should mean that we should be more generous; that, as Deputy Owen said, like Denmark and Austria in the past, we should accept special categories of refugees, such as handicapped refugees or those coming from camps in various parts of the world.
One of the provisions of the Bill relates to the quality of advice given refugees when they make application for asylum. It is essential that such advice be given them before being interviewed by an immigration official. Often the refugee is so disorientated, alienated and terrified, that he or she will make prejudicial statements to an immigration officer before being given an opportunity to obtain proper legal advice. Any such advice should be given them before they are interviewed by an immigration officer.
This Bill deserves the support of all Members. We have heard of horrific stories resulting from our present bad procedures. I shall be delighted if the compromise suggested is reached this evening. I commend the Minister on agreeing to review existing procedures and examine the terms of reference of the Refugee Agency, the agency founded by the State to assist groups of refugees. There is no substitute for good law passed by this House. That is what we as legislators are here for. Rather than reviewing bad procedures we should enact a new law of which we can all be proud.
This is very much a human rights issue, as many Members said. I congratulate Deputy Shatter sincerely on introducing this Bill. Deputies Shatter and Michael McDowell have produced more new Bills than have the Government in the term of this 27th Dáil. This is a good Bill which could be improved, along the lines suggested by Deputy O'Donnell, when it is dealt with by a special committee.
What I found interesting about the contributions made by the Minister for Justice last week and by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, this evening is that they want the present situation to continue, that is, where there are no proper statutory procedures in place for dealing with asylum seekers. The Department of Justice and the political heads of that Department want it to continue so that we can avoid our responsibilities, not just to ourselves but to the international world. If we did not adopt basic judicial procedures from the British when we gained our independence I suspect that today Ministers would justify making judicial decisions, which are now made in public on the basis of fairness, behind closed doors by officials and politicians. Why is it that matters that should be decided in a proper judicial way always remain in the case of asylum seekers, with officials and politicians? I do not believe this is good enough.
The Minister of State spoke tonight about the need to make the procedures user friendly. I support that concept and wish to highlight one particular case where I met the individual concerned, Marey Al Gutrani, a Libyan national who left Libya in 1982 because he was going to be conscripted into the Libyan Army to fight in the Chad war. He fled the country and come to Ireland on a visa to study English. Luckily, he came from a well off family who could afford to support him. In 1985, his application to have his visa renewed was refused and he went into hiding because he feared he would be sent back to Libya. Indeed, many other young people who fled to Europe at the same time have since been assassinated. However he was picked up by the police in 1991 and sent to Mountjoy Prison and then to Wheatfield Prison for 18 months where he was placed with sex offenders who frequently beat him up because he was different. He was treated disgracefully and it was only when a solicitor took a successful case to the High Court that he was released from prison. The deciding judge said that the man was being released because "his continued incarceration was unreasonable, unfair and unjust". However that man is still being refused asylum even though we all know that if he is returned to Libya, a corrupt state, at the very minimum he would be imprisoned and probably tortured. He has not had any contact with his family for a considerable length of time and because they were threatened he does not know where they may be or even if they are alive.
If there was ever a case where a Minister for Justice, on humanitarian grounds, could show that we want to make the procedures user friendly this is it. I do not know the reason an ordinary, decent young man was placed in jail when so many criminals are walking the streets of this country because there is no place to put them. It is an absolute disgrace. Our extradition laws are so out of date that we will not send people to our neighbouring jurisdiction to face a fair trial where they are wanted in connection with serious crimes, yet we will place in prison or send back to corrupt jurisdictions people such as the one I speak of.
The reason that person is not being granted asylum is that he is not on a hit list. Does anyone seriously believe that Gadaffi is going to put that man's name on a hit list? Obviously if that were to happen he would never be sent back. Recently the Department of Justice tried to send him to Egypt or Malta, neighbouring jurisdictions, and if it was not for the efforts of the Irish Refugee Council that attempt would have been successful.
If the Minister of State is genuine when he says that there is a need to make the procedure user friendly this is one humanitarian case. I know of the group that is working for the person in question. They are ordinary reasonable people and they have no other motivation than to highlight and have brought to an end the injustice and the dreadful way in which this young man, a decent person, has been treated.
I feel passionately about this case, I have met the person concerned and I know of the group. I have tried to raise the case in the Dáil in other ways but have been told that the Minister has no function in the matter or that it is a matter for the courts. I am fed up trying to raise the issue in a fair way. If we are serious — to quote the Minister's words — about accepting the spirit and the thrust of Deputy Shatter's Bill, I could think of no better example than this one.
We have an outstanding reputation internationally when it comes to being concerned and compassionate. Our religious and many of our volunteers go to third world countries where they work to ease the plight of under-privileged and starving peoples. This reputation is well merited when we consider the role which has been played by volunteers internationally but there must be a question mark over that reputation when we consider what happens to the tiny number of people who seek political asylum here. Deputy Kemmy has told us that there are about 50 such applications per year but let us consider the number that have been granted. One person was granted asylum in 1991, one in 1990, one in 1989 and two in 1988, a total of five people in five years. This is a shameful record given the torture and corruption taking place in the world and the tiny number of people who seek to come to this jurisdiction.
I welcome the Minister of State's commitment to set up an appeals procedure but he is not going far enough. We do not know what the procedures are. Deputy O'Donnell mentioned that there is secrecy; even when people are refused they are not given genuine reasons. All they are told is that they are not at risk. Last week the Minister said here that no one at risk has ever been sent back but I would challenge that statement. In 1990, six Sri Lankans were sent to India, one of whom has been sent back to Sri Lanka since. We take a conservative view when it comes to deciding which people are at risk.
As Deputy Shatter said last week, what he is seeking to do is to include in Irish law the spirit and thrust of the UN Conventions. The United Nations was established to rescue the world from the horrors and the fall-out of war, to seek political consensus in trying to deal with many of these problems, torture, persecuction and so on. If we want to remain genuine members of the United Nations. we owe it to that body to include in Irish law the substance of those Coventions and not try to have it every way which is what we often do in this country. We ratify Conventions but they are never put into effect in Irish law. This is a disgrace. We try to keep our heads down internationally, not draw attention to ourselves and pretend that we are fulfilling our obligations to the wider world.
Deputy Owen referred to the responsibilities of other small countries and the role played by the Austrians. On some occasions, in regard to the Vietnamese and Bosnians, for instance, we have been generous but we have made great play of that — the Minister of the day was there to welcome those concerned. All we are asking is for a fair system to be put in place so that political asylum is granted in genuine cases and to those who have suffered, perhaps tortured in the way that Brian Keenan and John McCarthy were. In the case of John McCarthy we heard him recently on the "Late Late Show" describe the torture he and other captives were subjected to. Is it unreasonable to ask that a country such as this should give asylum to people who are tortured but who succeed in fleeing their countries? It is not easy for them to do so given that very often they leave families and friends behind and leave only in difficult circumstances.
It is often said in relation to moral issues that if we change the law the floodgates will be opened; this is often an Irish excuse for doing nothing. If thousands of people were arriving at Shannon Airport I would respect and understand the Government's attitude but that is not the case, only 40 or 50 per year come to this jurisdiction. This may be because of our reputation internationally or because they do not get a chance to come here, by reason, as Deputy O'Donnell said, of our peripheral location. Surely, it is not unreasonable to ask that we be sympathetic, on humanitarian grounds, and grant asylum to those people.
Of all nations, the Irish people know how difficult it is when one is not recognised legally and one does not have proper rights in a foreign jurisdiction. Forty million Americans claim to be of Irish origin. We are lucky that so many left the country when one considers the problems we would be confronted with now if they had all remained here. We are great at going to the Brian Donnellys in the United States and to other politicians to beg that they give us more visas and green cards for our young people but we are found wanting when it comes to our responsibilities towards those most vulnerable of people who are being tortured, persecuted and frightened, people such as Marey Al Gutrani who is fleeing from Gadaffi — a gentleman this country should know a good deal about given his support for the Provisional IRA and whose activities have probably resulted in several people being killed and maimed on this island. If there is anyone who deserves to be given asylum it is somebody who has stood up to Gadaffi and objected to conscientious reasons to joining his army and fighting Libya's poorer neighbour, Chad.
I would like to make one last plea and it relates to the points made by Deputy Kemmy. The Opposition cannot win this vote unless the Government changes its mind. Great play was made of the fact that Deputy Shatter's Bill were accepted on previous occasions and that they were good Bills. Those Bills dealt with the adoption of Romanian babies and with legal separation. The only reason they were accepted was that the Government of the day would have been beaten. Let us not be disingenuous about it. There is no question of the present Government being beaten but if any issue transcends party political difference it is human rights, the human rights of the people we are talking about.
The Government cannot be beaten but it can suffer a moral defeat on this very important issue. The way one treats minorities and the way one treats the most vunerable like these 40 or 50 people, will be determined by the way we vote on this Bill tomorrow night. I appeal to the Minister of State not to proceed by way of a formal vote and defeating this legislation, instead let us put it in Committee and improve on it if necessary. For once and for all let us set up decent procedures to deal with these most vunerable people.
Debate adjourned.