Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 8 Nov 1995

Vol. 457 No. 8

Refugee Bill, 1995: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Foley

I welcome the opportunity to make some brief comments on this welcome Bill. I admit I am by no means an expert on the subject, although often I have felt the utmost sympathy for those who arrive at places such as Shannon Airport in a panic and try to make themselves understood using a language that nobody knows. The person very often is put back on the next plane and returned home. As an observer I would have no way of knowing whether the person was a genuine refugee, in fear of his or her life, or a desperate criminal on the run.

Today I was supplied with a four-page leaflet published by a group known as "Rescue Trust". I presume this is a respectable and well informed organisation and that other Deputies received the same document. Unfortunately, I have not had time to study it properly but I note it lists what it regards as various shortcomings in the Bill. For example, it quotes section 3 (1) which deals with the rights of refugees to various services in health, education, social welfare, etc. It stresses that refugees who do not speak English or Irish would be at a distinct disadvantage in availing of these services, particularly education, and that there is not any provision in the Bill to provide appropriate English language lessons through the medium of their own language. I appreciate this might be feasible if a refugee's native language was French, German or some other well known language, but if the refugee were from, say, China we would be unable to provide a suitably qualified teacher. This would also apply to refugees who arrive here with severe psychological disorders, perhaps as a result of torture in their country of origin, requiring appropriate medical treatment. That would demand as much communication as possible from the patient to ensure successful treatment.

Section 4 deals with travel documents. If the Minister refuses to issue a travel document, have refugees the right to know the reason? Is there a right to appeal and to whom does one appeal?

On section 5, will the Minister be required to consult human rights experts before making a decision to expel a person, as distinct from that person having a right of appeal after the decision? What is the definition of a "serious assault"? How serious must an assault be and who decides what happens to a person if they are returned? What constitutes a "serious assault of a sexual nature"? Who decides, prior to returning a person to their country of origin, that that person will probably be the subject of a minor or petty assault of a sexual nature?

Section 8 deals with applications for declaration. Throughout the Bill the right of a refugee-asylum seeker to be given information in a language he or she understands is only given "where possible". Giving information in any way other than in a language a person understands can never constitute giving a person information. If a person does not understand what has been said to him, he cannot be construed as having received any information.

Section 11 deals with the investigation of applications by a commissioner. If an asylum seeker is also a torture victim, and if he or she has been receiving treatment from a health professional, will that health professional be forced to surrender case notes to the commissioner? If so, it follows that under subsection (6) those confidential case notes must then be passed back to the torture victim in his or her guise as "applicant". Apart from destroying the doctor-patient relationship, a person may also have been given information which might have a detrimental effect upon his or her physical and psychological well-being.

I call for the inclusion of a let-out clause as a matter of urgency whereby an exception would be made in cases where the passing of medical care case notes to an applicant who is also a patient-client would be prohibited if this was not in the client's best interest.

I do not draw attention to these matters merely to be awkward but I appeal to the Minister of State to examine the Rescue Trust document carefully and, if necessary, table amendments to correct as many of the flaws as possible. She will then be in a position to make subsequent orders which will have the effect of making life a little less stressful for refugees we accept into our country. None of us would invite guests to our homes without ensuring that their stay was pleasant.

Ms F. Fitzgerald

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill and I congratulate the Minister on bringing it before the House. It marks a turning point in our treatment of refugees. Our history in this regard has been appalling but the Bill sets new standards and puts the rights of refugees on a statutory basis. That is extremely important.

The Bill builds on the work done by Deputy Shatter in 1993, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn in 1994, a committee of this House which examined the legislation last year and the current Minister. It is important that we have brought the treatment of refugees to the standard outlined in the Bill before us. In looking to the future it is important also that we reflect on how we treated refugees here in the past.

In contributing to the debate on a Bill that came before the House in 1993 I referred to the case hardened approach we seemed to be adopting in regard to refugees at that time. We have been slow to deal with the human rights issues involved and to ensure people were treated fairly and well.

Some of the events that took place here in the past were appalling. Amnesty International has taken up individual cases, particularly that of the Kurds who arrived in Shannon some years ago. Those events were more reminiscent of the Dark Ages than a country approaching the year 2000. Some of the children present on that occasion saw sights they should never have seen. The adults involved were traumatised and they were denied their basic human rights. That was regrettable.

A number of other cases were dealt with in a less than satisfactory manner. That is not to say all our dealings with refugees were similar but it is curious that we have not put the rights of refugees on a statutory basis until now.

The Bill is a good one and quite comprehensive. It gives clear guidelines, outlines key standards and it will help us to deal with this issue positively from now on.

Ireland has not had to deal with as many refugees as other EU member states. Because of our geographical position, few refugees sought asylum here. One could say that economically also we did not have much to offer. Although we are not talking about economic refugees today obviously that can be an influencing factor in where refugees choose to go.

It is interesting to see the variations in the numbers of refugees over the years. The numbers were not great and we should have been able to deal with them in a far more satisfactory manner. Compared with the numbers who seek asylum in other EU member states, the numbers who seek asylum here are quite small. In 1988 there were 49 applicants, 36 in 1989, 62 in 1990, 31 in 1991 and 38 in 1992. Those numbers are quite low although the latest figures are much higher.

Under the Geneva Convention we have an obligation to respect the human dignity of each applicant and to ensure not only that each applicant's legal rights are protected but that they are treated in a humanitarian way and with respect. The various groups involved in this area here have carried out sterling work over the years. They include Amnesty International, the Irish Refugee Council and the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace. For many years these organisations sought the necessary protection for refugees.

That is the background to the Bill whose purpose is to give statutory effect to our obligations under the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees. We have been party to that UN convention since 1956 and until now we have implemented it on an administrative basis.

Provision is now being made for a statutory procedure to determine refugee status and for an independent authority to examine applications, in addition to an independent board to hear appeals. It is important that these provisions are being included.

In her opening remarks, the Minister of State, Deputy Burton, spoke about the new standards being set and the important safeguards being built into the Bill. She set out the internationally accepted definition of a refugee as follows:

... "a refugee" means a person who, owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his or her nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or who, not having had a nationality and being outside the country of his or her former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it...

One can only imagine the plight of people who find themselves in these circumstances. Sadly in recent years an increasing number of people have suffered persecution or torture in their own country. I congratulate Amnesty International on the work it carries out in this area. Its reports set out in detail the horrific torture suffered by individuals in many countries. The Government must look at the UN convention on torture and ensure that we undertake the necessary work. It is important that we ratify this convention.

The terror experienced by refugees was very well illustrated by the people who attended a recent meeting of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. The reports of their experiences and the torture and persecution suffered by them are extraordinary. They made the very important point — I hope the Minister responds to this in her reply — that while this issue is being put on a statutory basis, clear guidelines are being set for officials who deal with refugees and proper procedures are being put in place to enable them to benefit from our social welfare services as soon as they have submitted their applications for refugee status, specialist medical and rehabilitation services must also be provided for them. It is important for us to give consideration to how these services can be developed. Specialist services must also be provided for the large number of people on refugee programmes. While it is important to ensure that there are high standards in this area we must also look at the services required by people who have been given refugee status and are settled here. Unfortunately, problems do not just disappear and specialist help is required. The Minister said she is satisfied that progress is being made in regard to the provision of legal aid. I ask her to clarify the position in regard to this very important service.

This Bill replaces the 1994 Refugee Bill which had similar objectives. The new provisions in the Bill are very welcome. For example, they provide that all applications will be examined by an independent refugee application commissioner with a right of appeal to a five person appeals board. Clearly this is a great improvement on the previous position. I welcome the right to be heard in principle and the specific right to an interview with an authorised officer of the commissioner. If a refugee is the subject of a negative recommendation and wishes to appeal against it he or she has the right to an oral hearing before the refugee appeals board. These provisions are an improvement on the proposals in the earlier Bill.

I am glad the families of refugees will be treated in a more sensitive manner under the Bill. Unfortunately in such situations families are broken up and members become separated. We do not have many refugees and it is only right that the law should deal with them in a sensitive way. Given the goodwill extended by other countries to Irish emigrants, it behoves us to deal in the most sensitive way possible with people who seek refugee status here. We know from experience the importance of providing adequate services for people who have had to leave their own countries and of ensuring that they are given a good reception here.

The lack of adequate interpretation facilities has been a problem for refugees who do not speak English. It is very difficult to understand why we did not deal with these people in a more humane way in the past. It is also very difficult to understand the thinking behind the rigid application of the law and our inability to improve the law over many decades. Much concern has been expressed about detention and we have heard stories about people who have broken arms and legs while climbing out windows in an effort to escape and who have refused to board planes which would take them back to their own countries. The Bill provides that detention will only be resorted to in exceptional circumstances and additional safeguards have been built into the law in this regard.

Having said that, we must also protect ourselves against international crime and ensure that people escaping justice in other countries do not seek refuge here. Clearly safeguards in this regard must be built into a refugee Bill. Hopefully these provisions will not have to be used too often but we must be vigilant and ensure that there is good contact between the Garda and the police forces in other countries.

I welcome the extension of the definition of a refugee to include persons who have been persecuted because of their gender, sexual orientation or membership of a trade union. I was very disappointed to learn at the conference in Beijing that the UN has not yet managed to include in international conventions protection for people who are persecuted because of sexual orientation; it is to its shame that it has not done that. While it was decided at Beijing not to provide protection on the basis of sexual orientation it was agreed to provide strong protection for people on the basis of sexual rights. The decision to extend the definition of a refugee to include persons persecuted because of their gender, sexual orientation or membership of a trade union is a positive development and should be a source of comfort to people persecuted on those grounds.

This Bill is welcome as it adopts a strong human rights perspective and lays down clear guidelines on how those who are forced to leave their country of origin because of persecution should be dealt with. It also contains safeguards to ensure that those seeking asylum or refugee status will not be moved from country to country. Clear guidelines are laid down as to which country is responsible for dealing with their applications. This ought to bring to an end the practice whereby an applicant can end up in France having previously been in Spain and Ireland.

It should not be forgotten that those who have to leave their families and friends, often at short notice, with little or no money and without a passport, are in a vulnerable position. It is extremely important, therefore, that we adopt a humanitarian approach and provide good training for those who deal with refugees at points of entry so that they are clear on their rights under this legislation.

The highest standards should be applied. I am aware I am being harsh, but this issue has been handled badly in the past. There is no point saying otherwise. Now that we have moved to a higher plain I hope this will be followed by a change in behaviour and attitudes.

I commend the Minister on introducing the Bill and I am pleased it has the support of the House.

Mr. Creed

I welcome this legislation which outlines the way in which applicants for refugee status should be dealt with. Too put the matter in context, it is important to recognise that the Exchequer has provided considerable support, through international agencies such as the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, for refugee programmes. Total assistance this year amounts to the substantial sum of approximately £10 million.

There are 1,000 programme refugees in this country, comprised mainly of Bosnian refugees and Vietnamese boat people. The Government recently sanctioned the entry of an additional 250 refugees under this category.

The Bill will allow us to meet our obligations under the Geneva Convention by putting the current administrative procedures on a statutory basis. We can all recall the horror stories which received media coverage whereby persons who had arrived at Shannon Airport seeking refugee status were deported to their country of origin, where their fate is unknown, without receiving a fair and just hearing because of the hardened attitude adopted under the administrative system.

A number of efforts have been made in recent years to legislate in this area. The Bill produced by my colleague, Deputy Shatter, in 1993 was followed by the Refugee Bill, 1994, introduced by the previous Government which has now been replaced by this Bill. The committee system has been the subject of much criticism — it is argued that it is not working satisfactorily — but this Bill, which is a significant improvement on the 1994 Bill, proves to a certain extent that it has much to offer. When the 1994 Bill was dealt with in committee trenchant views were expressed which, fortunately, have been taken into account by the Minister of State, Deputy Burton.

This is comprehensive legislation containing over 30 sections. It contains for the first time a defination of "refugee". It is right and proper that those who flee their country of origin because of persecution on the grounds of gender, sexual orientation or membership of a trade union should be granted refugee status. This is a welcome development.

I also welcome the provision under which an applicant for refugee status will have the right to be heard. There will also be an obligation to provide an interpreter, where necessary.

This Bill forms a necessary part of the legislative framework in a rapidly changing world. In the recent past there was less uncertainty between the political systems in the East and West. The world is now a different place; there is more turmoil and uncertainty in economic and political terms. As a consequence, there is a greater need to put procedures on a statutory basis to deal with those affected. We only need to consider what is happening in the former Yugoslavia to realise just how much the world has changed in a short space of time and that we were ill-equipped to cope with the changes.

Our credibility as a nation has also been affected because of our attempts to lecture the rest of the world on the need for intervention in international conflicts without being willing to take part ourselves. War and intervention can be just in certain circumstances. Those of us who watched in horror the tragedy in Srebrenica must question our moral authority to lecture others about their inactivity when our nation is unwilling to participate. To put it bluntly, we are not prepared to have body bags arriving back to our country. Our moral authority is compromised in clinging to our neutrality in a fashion which is not clearly defined and does not take cognisance of a changing world. It is high time we had a reasoned and constructive debate to see if a positive role can be determined for an Irish policy of neutrality.

I have some reservations about the Bill which I hope the Minister can take into account on Committee Stage. The Bill ratifies the Dublin Convention, under which a person who arrives here seeking refugee status may be transported to another EU country where it is felt the application can be more properly dealt with. There are internationally documented cases of people who have been put on this merry-goround and ended up in the country from which they originally fled. There is the danger that a "Pontius Pilate" mechanism may be included in the legislation so this provision should be tightened up, especially as the authority will be vested in the Minister of the day. The impact of the Bill will be undermined as legal due process will not be given to the applicant if we follow the Dublin Convention procedures as I understand them. I would like assurances and, if necessary, changes in that regard.

The other provision about which I have reservations is that which allows people arriving here to be fined, imprisoned and ultimately returned to the country from which they have fled if they arrive here on the basis of false, forged or inaccurate travel documentation. That fails to recognise the plight of refugees who, because of the circumstances they are attempting to flee, often find it impossible to get proper documentation to assist their flight from their country of origin. I ask for assurances from the Minister about the implementation and effect of those provisions.

Overall, I welcome this overdue legislation. It has had a long gestation since my colleague Deputy Shatter attempted to enact a Bill in 1993. This is the third much improved Bill. I wholeheartedly recommend it to the House.

Mr. M. Brennan

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. My constituency does not have a problem with refugees; a number of people from different parts of Europe are buying homes and settling down in the area but they are not refugees.

As a member of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography of the Council of Europe, I attended a sub-committee meeting on refugees in Zagreb, Croatia some weeks ago. Included on our itinerary was a field visit to a refugee camp in Kladusa, where 25,000 people live in deplorable conditions. Some of the accommodation consists of makeshift timber houses with a canvas-type roof and many of those dwellings were built on the back of tractor trailers. This was only one of the many camps we visited. Can the House imagine that 25,000 live there, in the most deplorable conditions I have ever witnessed? I never thought I would see anything like it.

Large families live in these trailers, with only canvas overhead. They are facing a harsh winter. The land on which the tents are erected is poor and extremely damp at this time of year. They have no electricity or sanitary services. Water was brought to the site in trucks but it is now being pumped through 2 inch plastic pipes. I have taken great interest in this part of Europe since I was there. It has been snowing in the area this week and the temperatures are below zero.

In this camp there are over 5,000 young children, 350 pregnant women and over 1,000 people who have limbs missing. The remainder were mainly teenagers and young adults, fine young men and women. When I was there in beautiful weather I saw them try to play football on a poor surface but the weather is harsh now. Can the House imagine that such a place exists in the centre of Europe, only two and a half hours flying time from Dublin where once people lived happily and contentedly? It is a sad story.

On our journey from Zagreb we saw the awful devastation of villages where people no longer live. It was nothing compared to what we witnessed in Bihac, Bosnia-Herzegovina, where over 15,000 homes were destroyed and every school was bombed. The position has improved slightly in Bihac in the last month since the siege was lifted. Aid is now getting through and with the help of the UNHCR a number of refugees have returned. Makeshift classrooms have been organised for the children but tens of thousands of children in Bihac have not received education for the last few years and since the war started in 1991 no one has received any second level education. Because of the devastation caused to the schools in the area in recent years, Switzerland, Germany, Saudi Arabia and other countries are helping to reconstruct the schools for the people of Bihac. Could we help by sending those who are registered with FÁS to rebuild some of the schools? If the Minister has not visited Bihac she should do so. I and others were devastated when we saw the living conditions of these poor creatures. We visited Knin where Operation Storm was launched in August. We met the army general in charge of the operations and toured the town. We saw at first hand the devastation of that beautiful area. Hundreds of Serbs fled as a result of the fighting. We visited Serb villages where houses were burned. It was tit for tat. Croations burned Serb houses and Serbs burned Croatian houses. We visited the wine fields and saw Serb women picking grapes and taking them home in creels on the back of donkeys.

The Red Cross, UNHCR and other agencies are doing an excellent job. I met Bridghin O'Rourke, a Garda sergeant working in the UN protection force and she spoke at the meeting.

The 25,000 people in the camp consider themselves the forgotten people. Europe cannot forget about them. We must help them and play our part in ensuring a war like this will never happen again. I never thought I would witness such atrocities in Europe. We should do everything we can to help these people.

Mr. Penrose

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill which contains several important principles and I commend the Minister for implementing it. I was always surprised that we failed to deal adequately with this area of law over the years. As Deputy Creed said, this Bill has been in gestation for three years.

To appreciate and fully understand the importance of the Bill it is prudent to examine the current mechanisms and arrangements in place to deal with refugees.

At present there is no law dealing with refugees. The Government operates the terms of the Geneva Convention on the status of refugees. This is done on an administration basis and the purpose of the Bill is to put that convention on a statutory basis. We need not only to treat refugee applications properly but to be seen to do so. The procedure appears to be that an applicant for refugee status applies to the Department of Justice which consults the Department of Foreign Affairs and the UNHCR. The UNHCR makes a recommendation and the Minister makes the decision. The recommendation made by the UNHCR is invariably followed as this organisation is accepted by the NGOs as being authoritative on the subject.

If an applicant is refused refugee status he or she has the right to appeal to an interim appeals board under the chairmanship of retired Circuit Court judge Peter O'Malley. It is only lately that this interim arrangement was put in place during discussions with the last Government in response to Deputies' concerns, including mine, on the issue pending enactment of the Refugee Bill which is now before the House. If the appeal is upheld the applicant is given refugee status. If not, the Minister has the option of giving him or her a "humanitarian right to remain". In the past refugee applicants were often detained pending the outcome of their applications. This is no longer the case although it is possible to detain them if evidence of criminal or terrorist activity exists.

All applicants were entitled to social welfare and health services such as the supplementary welfare allowance and rent allowance if necessary and on the same basis as Irish people. Children have a right to education. However, adults did not have the right to work. If refugee status was granted they had the same rights as Irish people, except the right to vote. They can work, be selfemployed and avail of education, work schemes, etc. It is only in the last 15 months or so that those small improvements came into operation.

The purpose of the Bill is to give statutory effect to our obligations under the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the status of refugees. Ireland has been a party to the UN convention since 1956 and, as I have outlined, we implemented it on an administrative basis. Under the Bill provision is being made for a statutory procedure to determine refugee status, an independent authority to examine applications and an independent board to hear appeals. These are important advances.

There are a number of new provisions in the Bill which provide that all applications will now be examined by an independent refugee application commissioner with a right of appeal to a five person appeals board set out under sections 15 and 16. These provisions are particularly important because of the "right to be heard" Principle which they enshrine. The applicant will now have a specific right to an interview with an authorised officer of the commissioner and with the aid of interpreters. If he or she is the subject of a negative recommendation and wishes to appeal against it he or she will have the right to an oral hearing before the refugee appeals board.

These provisions represent an important advance on the 1994 Bill which provided for the establishment of a three member Refugee Application Board and a one member Refugee Appeal Tribunal. My recollection of a major flaw or omission from the provisions of the 1994 Bill is that an applicant did not have a guaranteed right to either an interview or oral hearing before his or her application was determined.

It is important that a country such as ours be generous in providing for the reunification of families of refugees. We are providing that not only close family members — where a dependency relationship exists between the refugee and family members — but family members permitted to reside here will be entitled to rights similar to those provided in the Bill to persons granted refugee status. Those rights, set out in section 3, include the right to reside and travel freely in addition to health, social welfare, housing, education and employment entitlements, religious freedom and access to the courts. Thus family members and refugees will enjoy rights similar to those of Irish citizens.

The Bill imposes the highest practicable obligation on the authorities concerned to provide interpretation facilities, considered essential to allow an applicant to accurately present his or her case.

The detention provisions, invoked in exceptional circumstances only, have been modified to incorporate significant additional safeguards. One circumstance in which detention may be deemed to be necessary is whenever an applicant may be suspected of having committed serious offences in a foreign country. With regard to such safeguards, regulations will have to be drawn up by the Minister for Justice governing the treatment of persons in detention in addition to specify places of detention. A person under 17 years of age may not be detained and intervals at which continued detention must be reviewed by a court have been reduced to ten days from the 21 provided for in the 1994 Bill.

This Bill will also make it clear that the definition of "a refugee" will be taken to include persons persecuted because of their gender, sexual orientation or membership of a trade union.

The provisions with regard to deportation have been revised to ensure the highest standards of natural justice are observed. While recourse to deportation occurs very rarely, nevertheless it is crucial that the standards of natural justice we take for granted be complied with in this area also. It is also inevitable that there will be applicants, in compelling humanitarian cases, who may fall outside that definition. In order to provide for them, this Bill will enable the Minister to permit such persons to remain here on humanitarian grounds.

I have one or two additional points the Minister might address when replying. For example, the Bill does not address the issue of legal aid for applicants. It is important that the Minister indicate her intention to provide it because such people should be covered by our legal aid system even if it involves some extension of it.

A number of Members have expressed various concerns which I noted carefully. Deputy Creed was concerned about the Dublin Convention, drawn up to provide a mechanism to cater for refugee applicants being sent from one state to another, sometimes described as "refugees in orbit". That convention aims to guarantee an asylum seeker that his or her application will be dealt with in one of the member states of the European Union in accordance with the 1967 Protocol relating to the status of refugees. In the Dublin Convention member states specifically reaffirmed their commitment to the United Nations Convention and undertook to co-operate with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in its implementation.

The text of the Dublin Convention is included in this Bill and does not change asylum law, but sets out the rules for determining which European Union state will deal with an application. Member states who ratified the convention are bound to accept responsibility for dealing with appropriate applications but, as a safeguard, this Bill specifically provides that an application cannot be transferred to another state unless that state has accepted responsibility for it. In other words, we are ensuring that an applicant will not be "in orbit".

While we accept responsibility for an application sent to us from another member state of the European Union, if it is in accordance with the Dublin Convention, we are not obliged to transfer such application. Even if we could transfer an application we have the authority and discretion not to do so if we deem it inappropriate, which may allay some of the well founded concerns Members have expressed. When replying, perhaps the Minister would clarify that matter for the benefit of Members who made a number of important points on that aspect.

Section 12 which deals with manifestly unfounded applications, aims to safeguard the rights of asylum seekers and ensure that all applications are dealt with in accordance with the highest standards of natural justice while at the same time safeguarding the interests and safety of our citizens. Applications submitted by asylum seekers adjudged to be "manifestly unfounded" do not deprive applicants of their right to put forward their case. The Bill provides that an applicant whose application has been found by the Refugee Applications Commissioner to be "manifestly unfounded" will have an opportunity to put forward a case that his or her application is not manifestly unfounded in addition to being afforded an opportunity to appeal against the decision to the Refugee Appeal Board.

Section 12 (4) details a number of circumstances which would give rise to a view that an application is "manifestly unfounded", for example, where an application does not show any grounds for the contention that the applicant is a refugee.

Therefore, very important safeguards are now being put in place. While this Bill had a long gestation, I fully support its provisions and ask the Minister to take on board my observations and concerns.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

This is an important Bill because our attitude to it gives an indication of the type of country this is. Are we a closed country, concerned solely with our own problems? Are we a parochial nation with little or no concern about the problems of other parts of the World? In the past, we probably could have been accused of having a parochial attitude. It occurred to me to wonder if Jesus Christ had landed on our shores as a refugee, what type of reception would he have received here? Would he have been regarded as a social malcontent, as somebody uttering treasonable statements against the regime from whence he had come or as an economic refugee, somebody who came with probably no more than a satchel on his back and scandals on his feet? Would he have been accepted here? Somehow, I doubt it. Given that we regard this as a Christian country it is no harm sometimes to examine our attitudes and ask whether we are truly Christian in the way we deal with problems such as this.

Ireland has an obligation to be outward looking, caring and concerned in dealing with the issue of refugees and asylum seekers. There has been much publicity lately about commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the Famine —indeed, there has been ridiculous talk of apologies. We should be more concerned about examining our attitudes now in the light of what occurred at that time: about one million people died. They should be remembered. Those in my home town were known as the donkey eaters, an expression which goes back to the Famine times when people there resorted to eating donkeys.

When we look back we should not just think of the million who died but also the million who emigrated. They could not have emigrated to the US, Australia and other countries in Europe unless they had been accepted into those countries. What would have happened if the US or those other countries had a closed door policy then and refused to accept our emigrants? Many of those countries could justly have claimed that those fleeing Ireland in coffin ships were economic refugees. They might have claimed there was no political persecution and those involved were merely fleeing from disease and famine.

In considering our attitude to refugees today we should think back to the history of our own country and what our situation would have been had there not been an open door policy for the million who had to flee in the dark days of the late 1840s. The numbers who died might have been twice as great if people had been unable to flee the awful conditions which prevailed. That is the background against which we should consider the issue of refugees today.

We should also look back on how we treated asylum seekers and refugees over recent decades. I do not fully accept that we are just underpinning the administrative procedures we had in the past. Those administrative procedures were quite appalling in a number of ways. They were Kafkaesque in the way in which they were administered. Kafka's The Trial gives a fair outline of the way in which a refugee or asylum seeker was dealt with in Ireland — they did not know what the procedures were; there was no openness, transparency or accountability. While I accept those procedures have improved in recent years, they were not something of which we could be proud.

There has been a welcome change at administrative level in recent years. There has also been a sea change in attitudes among sections of the public. I get a considerable amount of correspondence on this issue, some of it from unusual places, possibly because I have indicated an interest in refugees over the years. It is understandable there would be interest from university groups or groups such as Amnesty International in Dublin, but it is encouraging to receive letters from towns and villages in my constituency such as Bandon, Ballydehob and Schull. Indeed, I have an active correspondent on this issue on Cape Clear. I find it encouraging to see such a widespread interest in this issue in peripheral areas. It accords with the opening up we need in our attitudes. Perhaps leadership on this issue is coming from rural rather than urban areas, and if it is so much the better. It reflects our history on other issues.

It is important to note that the 1994 Bill went to the Select Committee on Legislation and Security for consideration and that this Bill arises from that. This justifies the existence of the committee system. It was because of the discussion at the committee that a decision was made to take on board many of the numerous points raised there and to come up with a new Bill. That is the committee system at its best. The experience in relation to this Bill is a vindication of that system.

It has been fashionable to condemn the committee system. Such criticism arose recently when there was reference to it being a waste of time having an inquiry before a committee. The £35,000 spent on the inquiry of the subcommittee of the Select Committee on Legislation and Security last December and January was a good bargain when compared with the £35 million cost of the beef tribunal. There were limitations on the powers of the committee but it was a bargain. We need to develop the procedures to ensure the committees can produce stronger reports on any such inquiries.

As a result of the committee's input this Bill is a much improved version of the 1994 Bill. What I like most about the approach adopted on this occasion is the inherent openness and transparency which removes the worst aspects of the Kafkaesque approach of the administrative procedures. There will be clear guidelines as to what is to be done and clear statutory rights will be established for asylum seekers and refugees, such as the right to interpretation. I understand the need to temper that with the phrase "where possible". Somebody involved in dealing with refugees might come across an impossible situation where another deliberately tried to outfox the authorities with the use of language. I would expect interpreting facilities to be available in every case.

Other aspects of the Bill are attractive, in particular the appeals procedure. This Bill represents a sea change in how we deal with refugees and asylum seekers. There is no reference in the Bill to legal aid and it is important that the Minister should confirm that legal aid will be available in all cases. There is no point in having proper procedures unless a person can legally avail of them. It is unthinkable that somebody with language problems who lands on our shores should be expected to find their way around these procedures on their own without having access to legal aid. I should declare an interest as a lawyer but I make this point not on the basis that it will mean a great deal of money for lawyers but because of the civil and legal rights of those seeking asylum.

Generally there has been an improvement in our approach to refugees. Apart from the provisions of the Bill, the sum of £10 million is available under our overseas aid programme which directly or indirectly goes to refugees. We can be reasonably proud of that and it is certainly a vast improvement on the money that was available when I had charge of the overseas aid programme. The virtually unamimous support of the House for the overseas aid programme is one of the better developments in recent years. Having left office in 1987 I recall my horror when the incoming Fianna Fáil administration slashed the aid programme. I am glad that Fianna Fáil has reversed its approach and that the figures have been improved annually with the unanimous consent of the House.

Our approach to programme refugees is mildly encouraging. I do not think we can pat ourselves on the back undully for what we have done in that regard. We took in 500 Vietnamese years ago but our reaction to the Bosnian crisis was not adequate. The recent announcement of our willingness to accept another 250 refugees is a welcome improvement, but it is only that. Metaphorically speaking we bled with the Bosnians during their trials in recent years and we felt for them in their agony and I think this country would have been prepared over the past three or four years to back Government action on a more open door policy for refugees from Bosnia. I do not think we have anything to be very proud of. I hope we will be prepared to increase the number if required in the months and years ahead. At this stage our hopes are pinned on a peace settlement and I hope the current discussions will bear fruit. If not, we should be prepared to do more than we were prepared to do in the past.

The number of individuals who land on our shores whose application for asylum is successful is very small. I accept that many of those who were refused asylum in recent years were allowed to stay on humanitarian grounds and that nowadays there is nobody in jail, as happened in the past. Very few asylum seekers are now asked to leave the country. Things have improved but the number granted asylum is small. As a consequence the number coming here seeking asylum is very low. We are not known internationally as a country with an open door policy. If we compare ourselves to Sweden we can see the difference. At most a few hundred will seek asylum here in any year but in Sweden I understand the figure is 20,000. This is indicative of how we are regarded internationally. I am not encouraging an increase in the number but I believe in the light of our past we should have a more open door policy.

I appreciate that we will have a separate Dáil debate on the Dublin Convention which was specifically designed to deal with what are known as refugees in orbit, that is those sent from one country to the next. The end result of the convention was probably restrictive as member states reached agreement on how to deal with refugees, in particular those who went from one state to the next. I understand that refugees will be dealt with under the procedure of the country in which they first land. We will have to be very careful in dealing with the Dublin Convention and we must ask if we are prepared to send refugees back to a country which has a more restrictive approach than we have. I suggest that refugees should not be sent back to a country with a more restrictive approach than ours and where they might be sent back to countries that do not have a good human rights record. Some countries in Europe are flooded with refugee applications. It is easy for us to criticise the restrictive attitudes that those countries may be adopting but we are not in a position to do that. There is a problem with a unified harmonised European approach to the issue. We should be trying to encourage a more liberal approach among the member states of the European Union and we should be prepared to go beyond the agreed procedures and indicate clearly that anybody seeking asylum will be dealt with according to our procedures rather than being sent back to a country where the procedures are more restrictive.

The ideal situation would be a world where there are no refugees. In a small way we have a role to play. We can use our voice at European and UN level to draw attention to breaches of human rights in other countries and be supportive of moves such as the establishment of war crimes tribunals. In our own way we can be to the forefront of those opposed to breaches of human rights no matter where they occur. That is the role we can play internationally.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Carey)

I want to make a short contribution because I took a personal interest in the affairs of asylum seekers and refugees as difficulties occurred in my constituency at Shannon Airport. As a result of the succession of incidents there I sought changes in the law, and I am glad the Minister for Justice decided to introduce this Bill.

This is an amended version of the 1994 Bill which the previous Minister dealt with in committee. So many amendments were tabled on Committee Stage that the proper course has been taken by the Department in introducing a new Bill. The Minister was not experiencing many difficulties, but she was reluctant to change the old system and this is the result, to a certain extent, of our association with the British regarding mobility and the possibility that people would have access to the UK by the back door.

Different rules and regulations began to be operated when Aeroflot and the old Soviet Union airlines started to use Shannon Airport, giving access to Third World refugees who, from time to time, dropped into Shannon Airport and found themselves interned in Limerick Jail. This happened because the law was being administered remotely from Dublin.

Regarding this Bill, I would like to see an effort to divert some of the financial resources towards the provinces. In the case of Shannon Airport at least, there is a continuing crisis. Much attention has been given in the Bill to examination of family member applications. That is a significant improvement. However, I would like this to apply to the Cuban refugees in this country, some of whose wives and children are in Havana.

During the lifetime of the previous Government the authorities negotiated what is called a transit visa whereby people in, say, Cuba, could not come to Ireland, and this prevented the unification of families. A proper review of this matter should be undertaken right away as this has caused great stress and worry. Most of the applications received in Ennis are bona fide and the people involved have every intention of setting down in Ireland principally because they feel that in this country they can follow their religious aspirations. The transit visa is a shock to the system for these people. There may be those in the Department who feel that when the Refugee Bill is passed we will get agreement with America and that Cubans here will be assimilated. However, this will be an ongoing problem. Very soon other Asian refugees will be pouring in this direction. The issue of transit visas should, therefore, be clarified on Committee Stage, and I would like the Department to give particular attention to the Cubans here.

Since I first raised this matter in the Dáil great improvements have been made in the conditions under which refugee applications are examined here. Originally this State, I am sorry to say, depended almost totally on money provided by the Red Cross through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and very little was raised in taxation. I am glad that there are now sums for the programmes for refugees, that £5 million has been allocated by the Government for Emergency humanitarian assistance and a further £3.5 million for rehabilitation. This is a major step forward.

I compliment the volunteer agencies, particularly the Red Cross in Ennis, the Department of Social Welfare and the Mid-Western Health Board officials who have been very understanding of the dilemma of these people, have looked after their health which has been a major issue from time to time, and seen that families have settled in well in reasonable comfort. There have been noises from time to time in the constituencies from people who regret that refugees seeking asylum in this country are getting minuscule aid from the Department of Social Welfare fund or from the health board fund. Those people who complain should consider the effect of this on Irish people going in the other direction. We have had much debate in this House about emigrants. Irish emigrants were treated very well in the United States. Indeed, we have been using the good offices of the United States for many years to help us with our peace process. I am glad this Government has taken the initiative of publishing this Bill. There are many people awaiting its progress. Students want a purer definition of refugee. Others have reservations about the Bill as it stands. I would like to see the Department examining the aspirations of those people to see whether the Bill can be amended to make the improvements sought.

Amnesty International in Ireland has been very responsible and has at all times stood by in defence of the refugee. I admire the work, particularly the voluntary work, done by the many people in Amnesty International in their free time to assist asylum seekers to gain a knowledge of the English language or to acquire some kind of skill. Many voluntary teachers assist refugees and are generous with their time. I am pleased to have an opportunity to say something positive about those who have shown great humanitarian tendencies towards refugees.

Refugees who apply for asylum should be afforded legal representation when they arrive on our shores. There should be a panel from which lawyers could be selected to assist with processing of applications. Refugees would then have the confidence to tell the full story when they arrive here. Due to fear it often takes eight to ten interviews to discover the real story. Trust and confidence is important for asylum seekers.

I requested previous Ministers to establish a refugee court, similar to that which operates at the main airport in Los Angeles, although we would not have the throughput to operate such a system at Shannon Airport. While the provisions of the Bill guarantee legal representation at the appeal stage, refugees should be guaranteed representation from Amnesty International or a legal representative at the first interview after they arrive on our shores. Amnesty International has not called for such representation, but many problems could be avoided by adopting such an approach. We have a great pool of translators to call on for assistance when interviewing refugees. A lecturer from the University of Limerick was called on to assist in interviewing a refugee form Eritrea, and that person would still be in jail if we had not been able to find a person to translate what he was saying.

While some have expressed reservations about helping refugees, in general we show great generosity towards them, indeed, many have critised my attitude towards them. People have expressed the view that I should not make representations on their behalf. However, Members of this House were quick to whinge when Irish refugees who landed in the United States spent many hours in jail. Representations were made on their behalf. I am sure those refugees were not treated with kid gloves, but there has not been a disaster in so far as Irish illegal immigrants to the the United States are concerned. It is not my wish that there should be animosity towards asylum seekers.

Despite the great deal of time spent talking about the refugee problem and the emotion generated in this debate, the number of successful applicants is very small. There were 259 applications received in 1995, 355 in 1994, 91 in 1993 and 39 in 1992. While there has been a significant increase in the number of applications, the number that are successful is minuscule.

I welcome the Bill and I am sure amendments will be proposed on Committee Stage, The Irish Refugee Council has also welcomed it and expressed concern about the implementation of provisions for detention and legal aid, which the Minister has promised. The Dublin convention was referred to by other speakers. I compliment The Irish Refugee Council, Amnesty International and volunteers and State agencies who do a great job in this area.

Dr. Bhamjee

I am pleased to follow Deputy Carey in this debate because I know the extent of his work on the refugee problem in County Clare. Long before I was elected I heard of his work and following my election I directed many people to him who were experiencing difficulty in this area. I am sure he will recall the Iraqi doctor whom we both helped and who is now practising here. I congratulate the Minister of State on his work in this area, for which he will not receive any votes. Amnesty International has been protesting to us about this matter for a long time. That organisation must be congratulated for its active work and the pressure it put on politicians from all parties to ensure the passage of this Bill through the House. The last time a Bill of this nature was introduced was in the 1950s. I am pleased the Minister considered proposals from all sides in drawing up this worthwhile Bill. It also complies with UN conventions and the latest European laws on refugees. The number of refugees in Europe is increasing. Many refugees from eastern Europe are seeking asylum in Germany where, until recently, the laws on refugee status were very lax. We have caught up with the rest of Europe in this regard.

Shannon Airport is well known for the number of refugees who arrive there, Dublin Airport does not have that problem. Therefore, Shannon can be regarded as an international, rather than a regional airport. Refugees from Cuba, Ethiopia, Sudan and Somalia arrive on our shores. Muslim refugees who arrived from Sudan recently are in isolation, and Pakistani doctors practising in Ennis meet and pray with them every day. These refugees have made friends with the Pakistanis and feel at home with the Irish.

Some refugees arrive here alone. There is provision in the Bill whereby a spouse or children can be brought here at a later stage. This is a welcome, progressive measure which grants normal rights to these families. The people of County Clare, immigration officers and those working at the airport have been hospitable to refugees, although occasional lapses have occurred, which were referred to earlier. The Bill outlines the difference between economic and political refugees and caters mainly for the latter group. It provides for applicants for refugee status who do not have the proper documents.

One criticism of this matter relates to the amount of time it takes to grant refugee status. I know one lady who has been waiting at least four years and in the meantime she cannot work and cannot leave the country. To do nothing for years is not good for one's spirit. Some programme should be devised for people in this position. One such person has become the high jump champion of County Clare and has won medals for her club in other counties.

Credit should be given to the Red Cross who have done much work for refugees. There is a famous meeting place in County Clare for refugees and the landlord of the house concerned should be congratulated for the work he has done for these people. Friendships have developed between Irish people and refugees. My daughter has developed friendships with Cubans and people from the Eastern bloc. The children of County Clare benefit from these friendships because they learn new languages and cultures and get to know how other people live.

I welcome the appointment of the commissioner and the setting up of an appeals board. Previously when applications for refugee status were rejected even TDs were not given the reasons. That was a very unsatisfactory system which will be improved by setting up the appeals board. Refugees have been coming here since World War I and a number of them have contributed to society. In the past people have come here from Vietnam and more recently from Bosnia. Many of those people came here for medical treatment and some of them remained.

Deputy Carey referred to the problem of interpreters. It is not possible to provide interpreters for all languages but perhaps a voluntary agency could be set up whereby people who speak other languages could contribute to this area. It is a source of comfort for refugees to meet somebody who speaks their language. Perhaps the Minister would consider that matter.

Up to recently the number of successful applications for refugee status has been reasonably low. Many people who are granted refugee status do not understand their entitlements. For example, are they entitled to an Irish passport? If they wish to travel to another country is that possible or will they be prevented from doing so? If a Cuban wishes to go to America but is turned down by the American Embassy does that person become a liability to this State or what is the position? Perhaps the Minister will look into that matter and come back to me on it.

I welcome the provision on granting refugee status on humanitarian grounds. In the case of a Libyan student who came here and was refused admission, the Irish authorities tried to put him back on the plane but the captain would not take him. That is one person who should be allowed to remain here on humanitarian grounds. Refugees living in Ireland can appeal to the Minister for Justice and that is welcome.

I welcome the fact that legal aid is being provided for refugees. These people should be made aware of the services available to them. In County Clare there was no legal aid board until this year when the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Taylor, provided funding for such a service. Perhaps that money will be used not only for the divorce referendum but also to help refugees.

I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this Bill. We were promised it would be introduced by December 1995 and for once the Government kept its promise.

Minister for State at the Department of Justice (Ms Burton)

I thank all the Deputies who contributed to the debate, particularly those who acknowledged that we kept our promise. There has been a very broad welcome for this important Bill which was introduced to ensure that our procedures for dealing with applications for asylum will meet the highest possible standards. This is an issue on which all parties agree. The Bill represents a significant step in terms of achieving that objective.

Members referred to the widening of the definition of a refugee to include issues such as the admission of family members, questions of legal aid, procedures, the appointment of a commissioner and matters relating to the board. All those issues reflect details of my meetings with NGOs, such as The Irish Refugee Council, Amnesty International and the Irish Red Cross. These organisations have for a long time taken a detailed, serious and practical interest in the welfare of refugees. The Bill is partly a reflection of my meetings with those organisations. I acknowledge the advice and the information they made available to me.

The work of my predecessor in the Department of Justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, and the debates and discussions during the process of the 1994 Bill on Committee Stage were a major influence in the drafting of this Bill. A substantial number of amendments have arisen from the work undertaken by Deputies on the former Bill together with my review of it and contact with the NGOs I have mentioned. This Bill is a product of that influence. Many Deputies in addressing the Bill have talked not only about its subject matter but about Ireland's position regarding refugees. While the Bill is confined specifically to asylum seekers who arrive here, I assure Deputies that my approach is based on our overall responsibility to refugees. Given our traditions and experiences in regard to refugees, including those who seek asylum status in Ireland specifically dealt with in this and the earlier Bill, and our responsibility as a small independent member state of the European Union, our approach is one of addressing the broader issue of refugees throughout the world.

Currently our assistance to refugees falls under three headings. Through the overseas development programme we have to respond to an increasing number of crises which we wish could be avoided. We spend just less than £10 million as part of our overseas aid and development programme on refugees in places like the camps in Goma. A Deputy spoke of refugees in the former Yugoslavia. On behalf of Irish people, Irish Aid is proud to be assisting refugees in parts of the former Yugoslavia. The amount of money being spent there is significant. We are also assisting refugees in Palestine and under the care of UN agencies in that area. Hopefully, that will be of substantial assistance to the Middle Eastern peace process.

The second leg of our commitment to refugees is our admittance of programme refugees, groups who arrive as a result of a Government decision. Currently there are approximately 1,000 programme refugees here, approximately half of whom are Vietnamese and half from the former Yugoslavia. When programme refugees arrive in Ireland they are entitled to the same entitlements as an Irish person in relation to health, education, welfare and social services. I compliment the various agencies and social welfare services from health boards to community welfare officers, particularly in Dublin and in Clare, who deal with such cases.

We have a refugee agency under the Department of Foreign Affairs which is one of the agencies under my responsibility. That agency deals with the social and economic development of programme refugees. I am pleased that the Vietnamese and Bosnian programme refugees have active associations which, with Government financial support, address issues of social development, integration, language and particularly training to ensure those with programme status can ultimately enter the job market. Many Deputies identified that as a critical issue, a point with which I agree, and it is being addressed.

The Government has given permission for another 250 refugees to be accepted from the former Yugoslavia, together with their families in due course. We have made a number of offers to family members of Bosnian refugees based here to join their families and we look forward to their arrival. Our concerns in terms of international relations should be to assist in the achievement of human rights and democratic standards throughout the world to ensure that it will not be necessary for people to flee their native countries in fear of persecution and in terror for the safety of their lives and those of their families. That remains a fundamental principle of Irish foreign policy.

This Bill is closely modelled on the Refugee Bill introduced by the previous Government. It contains a substantial number of additional provisions to safeguard the interests of persons applying for refugee status. I am glad these measures meet with the approval of Members.

There is a limit to the number of issues that can be addressed in reply to a Second Stage debate. I am aware that a number of matters raised are more appropriate to Committee Stage, Deputies will have an opportuntiy to table specific amendments to the Bill on that Stage and I assure the House that I will give full consideration to any tabled.

A number of speakers expressed concern about the Dublin Convention set out in the Fourth Schedule to the Bill. While it is a matter we can discuss in detail on Committee Stage, it might be helpful if I were to clarify the position in that regard. I would like the House to be clear about its purpose. Its primary one is the protection of the right of an asylum seeker to have his or her claim determined in accordance with the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. We are all aware of cases where asylum seekers have been sent back and forth from one state to another. That is the phenomenon that has become known as refugees in orbit. The Dublin Convention was drawn up to address that problem.

The stated aim of the convention is to guarantee that an applicant who makes an asylum claim in the EU will have his or her application examined in one of the member states in accordance with the terms of the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. In the Dublin Convention member states specificaly reaffirm their commitment to the UN Convention and undertake to co-operate with the UNHCR in its implementation. I draw the attention of the House in particular to the fact that in August 1991 the UNHCR adopted a formal position on the Dublin Convention welcoming its principles including the guarantee that an asylum application will be examined by one of the member states.

The second point relates to the ratification of the Dublin Convention. As Deputies will be aware, there is a requirement in Article 25.5.2 of the Constitution that the State shall not be bound by any international agreement involving a charge upon public funds unless the terms of that agreement have been approved by Dáil Éireann.

As the Dublin Convention would be regarded as being within the scope of Article 29.5.2 it will have to be specifically approved by the Dáil and enshrined in Statute before it can be ratified by Ireland and its terms implemented. This will require bringing a motion before the House seeking such approval. That will facilitate a full debate on the convention and I am sure Members who addressed the question of a convention will contribute at that stage. Accordingly, we have provided in section 22 for making orders to enable the convention to have effect. These orders are in the course of preparation. When the motion seeking approval to ratify the convention is brought before this House, I plan to make available to Deputies drafts of the orders to be made to bring the terms of the convention into effect.

I do not propose to go into detail now on the contents of the Dublin Convention but it is important to bear in mind that it does not change asylum law or the obligations on member states of the European Union. It sets out rules for determining the State responsible for examining an asylum claim. For example, if Ireland had issued a visa to a person who then travelled to France and lodged an asylum claim there, Ireland would, under the convention, be responsible for examing the application for asylum. If the position was reversed and France had issued a visa and the application was lodged in Ireland, then France would be responsible for the examination. The responsible state must accept responsibility before an applically can be transferred. We have specifically provided in section 22 that an application cannot be transferred unless the other state concerned has agreed to accept it. Furthermore, while bound to accept an application for which it is responsible, a state is quite free to decide not to transfer an application to another member state and to assume responsibility for examining it.

A number of Deputies have voiced a concern raised by Amnesty International that if, under the Dublin Convention, we were to transfer an application to one of our European partners that country might send the applicant back to his or her country of origin. In that context I would point out that all EU states are parties to the UN Convention in relation to the Status of Refugees. The Dublin Convention's starting point is that is guarantees that the member states will honour their obligations under the UN Convention which specifically provides that an applicant will not be returned to a state where the life or freedom of that person would be threatened on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. This is known as the non-refoulement principle and Deputies will appreciate, therefore, that it will not be open to any member state to return applicants to countries where they may face persecution. Deputies will no doubt be interested to note that the EU member states have agreed that a threat to bodily integrity is covered in the nonrefoulement principle.

I would be concerned if Members suggested we could not trust our fellow member states to live up to their obligations under the UN Convention. It is extremely important for Ireland that we and all our EU partners play a full and responsible role in the affairs of the Union and that we operate in a climate of mutual trust and co-operation. For our part we have entered into a commitment to ratify the Dublin Convention which was signed on behalf of this country by the Minister for Justice in June, 1990.

I realise there is a need for a full debate on the Dublin Convention. We can have that debate on Committee Stage and we can have another debate when I bring the motion for ratification of the convention before the House.

A number of Deputies expressed concern about manifestly unfounded applications. I would remind the House that the UNHCR support special procedures for dealing with manifestly unfounded applications because they are concerned that the asylum process should be reserved for genuine applicants and that it should not be undermined by applications that are wholly without merit. The executive committee of the UNHCR adopted a conclusion in 1983 to the effect that national procedures "may usefully include special provision for dealing in an expeditious manner with applications which are considered to be so directly without foundation as not to merit a full examination at any level". In this Bill the grounds on which the Refugee Applications Commissioner may form a view that an application is manifestly unfounded are rebuttable and an applicant will have an opportunity, which includes the facility of an interview, to put forward a case that the application is not manifestly unfounded. Some of the grounds on which an application can be regarded as manifestly unfounded have been redrafted to take on board the Deputies' concerns that genuine asylum seekers could too easily fall into this category. For example, because genuine applicants may, in certain circumstances, have no option but to use forged documents, I have amended the relevant provisions so that only those applicants who do not have reasonable cause for having such documents could find themselves having their applications treated as manifestly unfounded.

Where the commissioner finds that an application is manifestly unfounded, the applicant will have a right of appeal to the appeal board and a right to an oral hearing before the board.

I will give a practical example of the whole question of manifestly unfounded applications. Recently I was with President Robinson in Rwanda and in Zaire where we met numerous groups of refugees. There are more that 2 million refugees in the countries around the borders of Rwanda. At present an international tribunal is seeking to address the question of war crimes in the genocide in which nearly one million people in Rwanda lost their lives in four months. If a war criminal, somebody involved in the genocide in Rwanda who had committed crimes against humanity was a terrorist or a person who would put the Irish public at risk applied to this country for refugee status in such a way as to seek to escape from the international tribunal and from justice it is correct that we protect ourselves from such an abuse of the refugee applications system. That is what the "manifestly unfounded" regulations seek to do. They take into careful account the points made by Deputies in the debate on the 1994 Bill when it was before the House. Deputies referred to the need to provide access to interpreters. The advice available to me is that the wording in the Bill places an onus on our authorities to provide interpreters while allowing for situations where it would simply not be possible to have an interpreter available and the rare and exceptional cases where a person refuses to co-operate with the authorities. In effect, the wording will ensure the provision of interpretation as a matter of course. Information leaflets containing the type of information which would be required by asylum seekers will be made available in a wide range of languages. This was an issue which arose in the course of the discussion on the 1994 Bill. The Bill has been drafted so as to reflect the advice and the points made by Deputies at that time to put an onus on the authorities in Ireland to provide interpretation facilities. Access to an interpreter is critical to a refugee in terms of his ability to make his case in a country with different cultures and customs.

On the issue of family reunification, Deputy Lynch raised the question of whether children under 18 years who are married should be automatically excluded for family reunification purposes.

She had in mind asylum seekers from countries where the age of marriage is very low, either because children are married off at a young age by their parents—this happens in regions of the Indian sub-continent—or they simply marry at a very young age. Deputy Lynch pointed out that in certain cultures, child marriages are common and the child remains under the protection of his or her family. I appreciate the Deputy's point and I propose to seek the Attorney General's advice on this matter because, under our legislation, we do not permit marriage before 18 years of age.

Deputies also rightly raised the question of the funding of a scheme of legal assistance for asylum seekers. While there are not any provisions in the Bill relating to this, I am pleased to tell the House that the Government has agreed to provide funding for such a scheme. Officials of the Department of Justice have been holding talks with the UNHCR on this matter and are currently considering proposals. Further consultations with the UNHCR and other relevant organisations, including those with a specific interest in the welfare of refugees, will be required before an appropriate scheme can be finalised. I hope to be in a position to provide more information on this issue in the course of the passage of the Bill through this House.

Reference has also been made to the aliens section of the Department of Justice, the way it currently operates and how it operated in the past. While the term "alien" has a specific legal meaning both here and abroad, it is not a term with which I am happy. I am pleased, therefore, to advise Deputies that the name of the division in my Department dealing with individuals in the general immigration area, including asylum applications, was altered during the previous Minister's term of office and is now called the immigration and citizenship division. We have also sought to make certain improvements in that division in the process.

I have responsibility in the Department of Justice to provide information to the public on immigration matters. In regard to asylum seekers, an information leaflet given to such people sets out the application procedures and provides a list of useful contacts, including the Irish Refugee Council, the Red Cross, the Eastern Health Board and the Mid-Western Health Board. The application forms for asylum seekers have been altered following consultations with the Irish Refugee Council and are available in a number of languages including Arabic, French, Romanian, Russian, Spanish and Turkish. On the general immigration side, a number of information leaflets are close to finalisation.

A number of Deputies raised points regarding immigration matters, generally. Deputies will be aware that an interdepartmental committee on non-Irish nationals was established to examine inter alia the policy and practice in relation to the admission to residence and right of work in the State of both EU and non-EU nationals. The first report of this committee laid the foundations of the Bill before the House today. The second report of the committee dealing with other immigration matters is expected to be presented to the Minister for Justice shortly.

I appreciate the points made by Deputies, particularly in this year when we begin a cycle of commemorating the great Irish Famine, the people who died as a result of it and those who were forced to flee Ireland to seek a better life abroad. Those people now form the Irish Diaspora of which we talk so much and are rightly proud.

The Bill is an appropriate response by us in this year of the Famine commemoration to meeting our international obligations and setting them out clearly in statute law. It simply deals with those people who arrive here and make application for political asylum. We give those people the same rights as Irish citizens while their application is being processed, including access to welfare, health, education and other services.

This is only one element of our support for refugees. In terms of overseas development aid we are now spending almost £10 million, most of which has gone to help refugees of countries such as Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, Somalia and the Sudan. Where possible refugees should be facilitated to remain in their own country where there are now many internally displaced persons, to use UN jargon, or to stay as close as possible to their country of origin.

As a voice in international affairs, we must also seek to assist in the establishment of universal standards of human rights, justice and democracy which I hope will mean that in the next century we will not have the spectre of millions of people moving from one country to another because of persecution. That is one of our roles as a country which has also experienced great trauma.

Question put and agreed to.