(Laoighis-Offaly): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill as many Members of both Houses are interested in it. Deputy Burke, as vice-chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, is well aware of the extent of interest in the subject among Members there. Such interest is not confined to Members of that committee. The Bill is the fruit of expressions of interest by many Deputies, particularly since the 1994 Bill was published.
I welcome this Bill which has been put forward as a replacement for the Refugee Bill, 1994. I compliment the previous Minister for Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, and the previous Government for living up to their commitment to bring this Bill forward. I also compliment the last Minister and Minister of State for listening closely to the views expressed by Members here. It is an example of how legislation should be treated in these Houses in that where genuine concerns are put forward and genuine amendments are suggested, they are listened to by the Minister and Government. This proves we have a better Bill as a result of all that effort.
I am glad the Government gave priority to this Bill by giving special responsibility to the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Deputy Burton, for this issue. Many Deputies will share my concern at the apparent, if not real, slowness of the Department of Justice in many areas. The appointment of a Minister of State with specific responsibility for this issue has helped to have the amendments and points in relation to the 1994 Bill addressed quickly in the Department and to have the Refugee Bill, 1995, brought before the House that we might work on it without undue delay. I compliment the Minister of State for her work in recent months in this area.
I wish to address two main areas: first, the improvements which have been made in the 1995 Bill compared with the 1994 Bill; and, second, some of the criticisms and concerns which have been raised inside and outside this House in relation to the Bill.
The aim of all concerned with the welfare of refugees is to ensure that our procedures for dealing with refugees are placed on a statutory footing.
Deputy Burke referred to the practice that built up administratively over the years which was compassionate in many respects but defective in others. It is necessary to remove any doubt that may exist and to assure refugees that the law affords them as much protection as possible. We should aim to meet the highest international standards of fairness and justice when dealing with refugees and I am satisfied that the general thrust of the Bill will ensure that is so.
Our record in this area has not been the best. Other countries were more lenient with and tolerant of refugees but when the Bill is passed we will be on a par with the best practice in those countries.
In many European countries there is an increasingly hostile attitude towards refugees, particularly economic migrants, since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the ending of the Cold War. Many countries have tightened up procedures where heretofore they had a more liberal refugee policy. In Germany, France, Sweden and other countries there is increasing intolerance towards refugees. I hope that will not happen here. This Bill will ensure that the interests of Irish citizens, refugees and asylum seekers are well balanced and dealt with properly.
The two aspects of the Bill I most welcome are that there will be an independent procedure for determining refugee applications and there will be an independent appeals system. We must ensure they remain independent. I do not doubt that the Department and the Minister will do their duty in that regard. When the Bill is enacted I hope we will not forget about the issue but will avail of the opportunities afforded us to discuss, for example, the annual report of the refugee commissioner.
I welcome clarification of the definition of "refugee" and compliment the Minister on extending it to include those who fear persecution for trade union membership or on grounds of gender or sexual orientation and for including the fear of sexual assault as a threat to freedom. Members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs heard testimony from refugees, some of which was horrific particularly as regards physical assault and sexual assault. In Bosnia many women were the victims of rape or were threatened with sexual assault. It is important to recognise that the threat of sexual assault is a threat to freedom which may force someone to flee their country and become a refugee.
I am glad the Bill provides that refugees automatically will have the legal rights that apply to all persons in this jurisdiction. These are to be extended to family members who are allowed to join their refugee relation in Ireland. Provision is made to allow a dependent relative — not just a spouse, parent or child — admission to the State. This will help in the reunification of families.
The Minister extended the provisions of the Bill beyond the exact requirements of the Geneva Convention and that is welcome. Section 5 gives effect to Article 33 of the convention which states that a State such as ours shall not expel or return a refugee to the frontiers of territories where his or her life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Section 5 goes beyond that provision and extends the protection to people other than refugees. Any person who falls into the category which is defined will not be returned to their own countries. That allows us to treat in a humanitarian way those who arrive at a port or airport and may not have come within the definition of "refugee" but who are threatened or terrorised in their own country. I am glad that the section of Article 33 which prohibits certain people from availing of the Geneva Convention protection is not being applied.
The Bill continues in statutory form the existing provision for the Minister to allow a person who may not technically qualify as a refugee to remain here on humanitarian grounds. Many people have been afforded protection under that provision and it is right that it should be put on a statutory basis. While we wish to be as open as possible to refugees we have a duty to ensure that our procedures are not abused or taken advantage of. In this era of international terrorism, drug trafficking, genocide, money laundering and serious crime the Government must ensure powers exist to weed out and deal with bogus applicants who take advantage of the provisions for genuine refugees. The powers set out in the Bill are necessary, fair and balanced and do not pose a threat to bona fide applicants.
As regards the procedures for making, accepting and determining applications for refugee status I welcome the establishment of the commissioner who will be independent. We know the important and impartial role played by the Ombudsman in vindicating the rights of citizens. The refugee commissioner will have no less an important or independent role. I trust succeeding Governments will ensure the necessary resources are provided through the commissioner and his or her office and avoid the unhappy experience we had a number of years ago with the Ombudsman's office. It is up to us to oversee the Estimates and counter any Government proposal that does not make the necessary resources available to the commissioner.
I welcome the establishment of the refugee appeals board. Those of us who deal with constituents' queries on social welfare, health, etc. appreciate the need for such a procedure. I regret that aspersions have been cast on the independence of the board which will be established by law, act in accordance with the principles of natural justice and be chaired by an experienced lawyer. The board will strengthen significantly the rights of refugee applicants where the commissioner refuses an application.
The right to appeal and to an oral hearing is guaranteed. That is an improvement on the 1994 Bill. The procedures for receiving and dealing with applications are comprehensive, generous and fair to the applicant.
The role of the immigration officer has been changed under the Bill in that, henceforth, he will be obliged to inquire of a person he believes may be a refugee whether he or she wishes to apply for refugee status. The immigration officer must inform that person not only of his or her right to apply for refugee status but also to consult a solicitor and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. In effect the role of the immigration officer will be to inform any person of those rights and refer the application to the Refugee Applications Commissioner.
Critics who say there is confusion over the interpretation of the term "authorised officer", who fear that the "immigration officer" may end up being an "authorised officer" should read the definitions section when they will be reassured that an "authorised officer" will be a member of staff designated by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and that his role will be separate and distinct from that of the immigration officer.
The Bill affords an applicant the automatic right to an interview with an officer of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, the right to present his or her case, which is a considerable improvement on the 1994 proposals.
One matter of concern to many people has been the right of an applicant to the services of an interpreter, considerably strengthened in the provisions of this Bill, and goes as far as is humanly possible. Not every point of entry to the State can guarantee that an interpreter will be available, at short notice, to assist a refugee applicant in dealing with an immigration officer. However, the Bill goes further than its 1994 predecessor in ensuring that, where humanly possible, intepretation is provided. What greater provision can be made in practice than to vest in the authorities the highest possible obligation to provide an interpreter and allow for rare or exceptional cases, for example, when an applicant might refuse to co-operate with our authorities? That high standard of obligation to provide an interpreter applies also where an applicant is interviewed at a later stage in the procedure by an officer of the Refugee Applications Commissioner or at a hearing of the Refugee Appeal Board. I am very happy that the right to an oral hearing and to interpretation, as far as possible, is being provided.
The detention of refugee applicants has been a matter of concern over many years. I am satisfied that the Bill will eliminate the disgraceful instances we witnessed in the past, of persons being put in jail while applications wended their way through the cavernous channels of the Department of Justice. There is need for some provisions to detain people who may be under definite suspicion, for example, of being a drug trafficker or, as we witnessed recently, one of the bombers in Paris. The provisions of this Bill still provide that such a detainee should be brought before a court as soon as possible and, in the case of his or her detention being confirmed by the court, must be brought back to have that decision reviewed every ten days. Another necessary, humane provision is that a person under 17 years of age may not be detained.
The provision of legal aid for refugees has also given rise to anxiety. I note the Government has agreed that legal aid should be provided administratively and I understand that discussions are continuing with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and others on how this provision might be operated. The Minister of State said that she will announce its details during the passage of this Bill, which I hope she will do quite soon.
It is also satisfying to note that programme refugees coming here, such as the Vietnamese, Bosnians and the additional 250 who will soon arrive from the former Yugoslavia, will have their rights protected and enhanced under this Bill. While they may not come within the normal, international definition of "refugee", they will be afforded the same protections.
Another anxiety of those interested in this matter is in relation to the provision for fast-tracking manifestly unfounded applications. A number of the provisions of this Bill should allay such concerns in that they endeavour to safeguard the rights of asylum seekers and ensure they are dealt with in accordance with the highest standards. Of course, we also need to protect Irish citizens and their rights. While we need a fast-track procedure to deal with obvious suspects, such as perpetrators of international crime—and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees agrees that this procedure should form part of our practice—the Bill provides that a person whose application has been found by the UNHCR to be manifestly unfounded must be given reasons therefor, afforded an opportunity to advance a case in their defence, and continue to have the opportunity to appeal to the Refugee Appeal Board, another wise safeguard.
Another concern relates to the Dublin Convention which I understand was drawn up to deal with the position whereby many refugees who were what could be termed "refugees in orbit" were shunted from one European country to another. It is my understanding that the convention aims to guarantee an asylum seeker that his application will be dealt with in one of the member states of the European Union in accordance with the United Nations Convention. That convention does not change the law on asylum but simply sets out the rules for determining which state should deal with an application. While we accept responsibility for an application sent to us from another member state, if it is in accordance with the Dublin Convention, we are not obliged to transfer it. The Bill provides that a person will not be transferred to another state under the terms of the convention unless that state has given a clear commitment to deal with such application in accordance with proper procedures.
The right to work is the final concern I want to address. Under the provisions of this Bill, an applicant for refugee status will not have the right to work but, of course, will be entitled to be maintained under our social welfare code and other provisions. Some people have suggested that we should give asylum seekers a right to work while their applications are being processed. It goes without saying that, when their application has been dealt with and approved, they will have the right to work.
I am aware, from the Minister's opening remarks, that her Department is concerned about giving that right to work prior to an application being determined because it could be abused and it is easy to foresee how that might happen. For example, a person who should normally apply for a visa or work permit might be encouraged to pretend he or she is a refugee to obtain the right to work here sooner. It appears to be reasonable to provide that the State will maintain such an asylum seeker during his or her period of application and be allowed to work here when their application has been granted.
Nonetheless, the overall manner in which the Department of Justice deals with migrants, other than refugees, is in need of overhaul. Any Member who has had dealings with that Department, for example, through the Aliens Office on behalf of people endeavouring to gain entry to this State to study or work, or even those endeavouring to take out Irish citizenship will know its antiquated, convoluted and secretive system for dealing with such applications; even the term "aliens" is offensive, sounding like something from the movie "ET" or "Star Trek".
Now that the Bill has been introduced, I ask the Minister to apply herself and her Department to a total overhaul of the so-called aliens legislation and procedures.
This Bill is a model of the type of legislation that should also cater for other classes of migrants to this country. Now that the Minister of State has been successful with this one, perhaps she can persuade her Department to examine that other category as a matter of priority.