I welcome the Minister of State back to the House. We are resuming on amendments Nos. 37 and 38. Senators will recall that when I invited Senator Mulcahy to report progress on the Bill the last day, we had already discussed those amendments at considerable length. Is amendment No. 37 being pressed?
Refugee Bill, 1995: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 37:
In page 20, subsection (1), line 44, after "confidential" to add "only if the applicant so desires".
—(Senator Mulcahy.)
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Are you concluding the debate?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are resuming the debate, but I was reminding Senators we had already discussed these two amendments at great length.
I am not sure if we had made a great deal of progress in terms of the Minister of State indicating her position on the matter or other speakers contributing to the debate. I did not say everything I wanted to on the last occasion. I do not want to spin out the matter unnecessarily but some very important policy matters have to be decided. I am not trying to slow down the proceedings in any way, but from representations made to me there seems to be genuine concern about this. I was thinking about this today and I would like to rephrase the question somewhat.
How will the public or members of the legal profession get to know about refugee cases, if at all? I raised on the last occasion the issue of whether a matter brought before the High Court on a point of law could be reported if it led the public to identify a person as an applicant under the Act. These are extremely important questions. We have already decided that the hearings of the Refugee Appeal Board should be held in private, with which I agree. My logic for supporting that is, perhaps, different from that of the Minister of State. I support it because I am afraid certain applicants would use their application to the Refugee Appeal Board as a propaganda exercise and would seek to publicise alleged wrongdoings in other countries which it might not necessarily be possible to check.
Section 19 is very wide ranging and draconian and debars an applicant from having their case highlighted, unless the Minister so consents. The Minister of State must provide the House with a very strong rationale for this rigid and hidebound prohibition on revealing the identity of the applicant. I accept we are only talking about the identity of the applicant rather than the case itself. However, it is not difficult to think of cases in which the person would have such a high profile that the mere mention of the case could lead the public to identify them.
This is an extremely important section from the point of view of civil rights and democracy. I do not want to delay this matter too much, but I hope the Minister will provide the House with some inspired reasoning for this section. These are not my original thoughts but those of people involved in this work, of which the Minister of State has greater experience than I do. Genuine representations have been made to me and the House deserves to hear the Minister's rationale in this regard before we vote on it.
We went into this matter very thoroughly the last day but I want to add a couple of points. I can understand why the Minister of State is anxious that people could be abused by the publication of stories which would have serious effects on their families at home and so on. That would certainly be the case with children and the mentally incapacitated, who would need protection. However, there is a possibility, as Senator Mulcahy said, that even telling the story could identify the person.
When we spoke about this section last week we said it was mainly a person's name which would identify them. Senator Neville gave the example of the X case. However, on the other hand, there are thousands of teenage girls in Dublin, so referring to someone as "girl X" did not mean that telling the rest of the story would allow the person to be identified. I will not discuss again poor Saddam's relations who foolishly went to Jordan rather than here and, worse still, were unwise enough to go back to Iraq. However, how could one publish the details of the case of such high profile people without allowing them to be identified?
Even if a person wants the details of their case published in the press, it is not possible to do so if the Minister refuses. Pressure was brought on the Department of Foreign Affairs regarding the beef tribunal and the granting of visas, which shows that pressure can be put on Ministers. I understand the Minister has to give consent in regard to work. However, pressure can be put on Departments.
Is there any similar legislation in Europe which requires the consent of a Minister before the details of a case can be published? Is it the norm that one has to have ministerial consent if the applicant gives consent? Would it be possible for the Minister of State to alter the words "the consent of the Minister" to "following the advice of the Minister"? I do not know if the word "advice" has legal connotations but it is not quite as draconian as "the consent of the Minister" which could block the whole case from being reported. Only the name need be withheld, but the Minister might consider that the rest of the case would identify the person involved and she may refuse to give her consent. It may not be possible to say that it was unreasonable to refuse consent. Again, major commercial concerns could put pressure on the Minister.
I gave reasons at length regarding this section on the last occasion. I am glad that Senator Mulcahy now accepts that what is in question is the identity of the applicant and that the target of this provision is the proper privacy of the applicant. This does not fetter the media in giving coverage to the circumstances of the application or details of the political cause espoused by the applicant. All that it requires of those who would engage in publicity is that they exercise caution and prudence in the material they use so as to avoid information which would tend to identify the applicant or the applicant's home connection. Most practising journalists are familiar with the wide variety of techniques, whether it is the print or television media, where cases can be highlighted while the identity of the applicant is a matter of privacy.
I am aware from the earlier debates that the principle of there being a second line of defence for an asylum seeker under pressure to forgo privacy was widely accepted. I have had much contact with refugees and the organisations dealing with them, especially the primary organisation, the UNHCR. It is very anxious to see that refugees are not abused — there are cases where this can easily happen — and that the proceedings under which refugee applications are dealt with are proceeded with in a proper manner.
I must take cognisance of the representations I receive, especially of the factors I outlined in detail — I do not want to go over all the ground again because we spent a great deal of time on this. Of the three cases we have had in the past five months, the question of people being identified worked significantly to their disadvantage. I told the House last week of the case where an applicant's identity had been made known. A newsroom of one element of the media contacted the embassy of the country of origin of two asylum seekers inquiring about their case. This embassy subsequently contacted the Department of Justice seeking further information about the applicants.
In much of this Bill we are seeking to draw a balance between the rights of the asylum seeker, the protection of the asylum seeker who may have fled from a difficult and complex political situation, and the protection of Irish society and citizens. There have been no less than three cases in the past five months — such as the two I have outlined — where the identification of applicants can put at considerable risk, not the applicants, who are safely in this country, but their families at home. There is perhaps a job to be done by all of us in educating the media as to how to use information sensitively in a way which is responsible but not in a way which puts at risk either the asylum seeker or the families of the asylum seeker.
I appeal to the House to take note of these practical points. I am not referring to legal theories but to poor people under considerable pressure and danger. I hope the Senator would be worried about the implication of the case I mentioned becoming common practice, both for the asylum seekers and their families back home.
I would also draw attention to subsection (2), where the Minister's consent cannot be unreasonably withheld and is, therefore, subject to all the normal court challenges. Anybody acting as a Minister must do so under advice on the principles of natural justice and the fact that her decision may be challenged in court if it is unreasonable.
I ask the House to take account of the balance of interest, which is what we are concerned with here, and how we draw the balance correctly. The balance is drawn correctly in this section so as to allow for publication of the story but the withholding of identity in certain situations. This will be necessary to protect the asylum seeker. Many asylum seekers welcome this protection because they may themselves be subject to pressure, either because they are not experienced in handling certain media situations, but more usually because the exile politics of their own situation is highly complex and there is the possibility of them being abused. I do not refer here to my experience in this matter just in this country but in many other jurisdictions where exile politics and refugee politics are highly complex. People can be abused. They may wish to be protected from that abuse but they have no mechanism to do so because they must say one thing in public and they may wish for another thing in private with regard to themselves and their families. This is what they so advise us.
Does legislation in other European countries require the consent of Ministers on the publication of the story?
The only question at issue here is that of identity. There is no restriction on the publication of the story. I cannot answer with regard to consent on identity in other European jurisdictions. I will get the information for the Senator.
This Bill probably provides the most liberal refugee legislation in Europe. When and if passed — if we can get through it — it will offer a model to the rest of Europe which would be in keeping with our traditions in this country, especially in the way we have developed as a society in recent years.
I am as anxious to get through the Bill as anybody but I am not going to be party — I do not suggest anybody else is — to rushing through part of a Bill which may stand on the Statute Books for many years and could affect the lives of people in a very significant way.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Minister. This is why, when some of these agencies approached me and asked me about confidentiality within the Refugee Appeals Board, I went against them because I considered that the primary point was the protection of the applicants and their families back home. However, unfortunately it is not that simple. For example, recently a North Korean soldier defected by flying a MIG fighter aircraft into South Korea. His family may suffer as a result of what he did, but that person took a decision and it was reported. I put it to the Minister that there is a strong public policy argument to be made for reporting that story, although the identity of the person might not have been revealed.
I am broadly sympathetic with what the Minister is saying, but again it is not that simple. With all due respect, I do not think the Minister should try to proceed on the basis that she has the imprimatur for her particular stance from the UN because when it suited her she was quite happy to go against the UN. I have in my hand the comments of the UNHCR on the Refugee Bill, 1995, and the right of asylum seekers to employment. Basically, it argued for the right to employment. The Minister is picking and choosing, so she should not use what the UN says as a basis for her argument. She should base her argument on the strength of its merits, not ex cathedra.
This is an independent State.
If the Minister seeks to use an ex cathedra argument, I am entitled to say that she has been abusing that on the other hand.
She is not abusing that.
She did on the right to work.
She can take advice. I object.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Mulcahy without interruption. If Senator Neville then wishes to make a contribution, he will have the opportunity.
It is not only agencies that work in the area of refugees which are concerned. The National Union of Journalists are also concerned. A media release from that organisation, the date for which I do not know, stated that section 19 of the proposed Refugee Bill seems to directly contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It requires the consent of the Minister for Justice as well as the applicant before details of the case can be published or broadcast. Should the refugee wish for anonymity, he or she of course is perfectly entitled to that, subject to a public interest override; but should he or she wish to make the public aware of the case, it would seem that a Minister who found such information embarrassing could prevent it getting out under a severe penalty, and any journalist concerned with such a publication or broadcast could face a fine of up to £1,500 and/or prison for up to six months.
Again, I am not presenting that as a conclusive argument, but if one reads the section closely the phrase used is "no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify a person as an applicant... shall be... broadcast". Who will define "no matter likely"? It will be the courts. That will bring an element of uncertainty into this matter, where a refugee applicant decides he or she wants the story to be told, the person tells the story to a newspaper or a television or radio station and a judge decides subsequently that the matter was likely to lead members of the public to identify that person. This section is vague and uncertain and it will produce great difficulty in the future. The Minister said that we must train journalists. Maybe we must, but the Minister or I will not do it. Journalists being journalists, it will not happen.
The case I raised of the journalist telephoning the embassy of the country concerned for information on asylum seekers in this country is, in my view, a gross departure from good journalism practice and an absolute indicator of the need for training in the area.
Nobody will argue more strongly than I that journalists should be better trained. In fact, many people should be better trained. The reality is that journalists will make mistakes and may well find themselves being the subject of a fine or imprisonment for what is an innocent mistake.
In my view, this section is vague, dangerous, ill thought out and ill prepared, and it should not proceed as planned. As the Minister quoted authorities, why have the voluntary agencies which deal in this area argued against this section? They are the people——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are not dealing with the section but with amendments Nos. 37 and 38 and we must dispose of those amendments before we move on to deal with the section.
Referring to amendment No. 38 in particular, it is proposed by me, among others, that the words "and the consent of the Minister (which shall not be unreasonably withheld)" be deleted. In other words, it should only be up to the person to decide. They may make decisions which will have an impact on them and their families, but it is a question of weighing up which is the greater evil.
I also asked questions which the Minister did not answer. How are we to build up a body of knowledge on refugee affairs and law? The appeal board is to be confidential. The Minister will shrug her shoulders and say that it is not important legally. The fact of the matter is that a jurisprudence in this area has built up in almost every European country, but nobody will know anything under our system. The long-term sufferers will be refugee applicants who cannot avail of a body of expertise to argue their case, and there will be some arguments. The Minister seemed to indicate on the previous occasion that this would all be plain sailing. She knows there will be arguments. There-fore, with regard to amendment No. 38, if everything is to be confidential, how will lawyers and the refugee agencies gain knowledge of refugee affairs?
I sometimes lose the thrust of Senator Mulcahy's argument. In one area he is arguing that refugees' identities must be protected at all cost, while on another point he almost said there should be open information on the matter. The fact that the section includes the provision to require "the consent of the Minister (which shall not be unreasonably withheld)", is an important part of the Bill because refugees are very vulnerable people. They will come under pressure to release their names. Their organisations will put them under pressure to have their names released for good objectives, but the thrust of this Bill must be to protect the individual refugee and his or her family in the home country. There will be occasions when refugees will feel obliged, due to their cause or the pressure of well intentioned organisations, to reveal their names. This may have the effect of causing difficulties for the refugees, as they may be targeted by groups, or for their families in the home country. Therefore, to ensure refugees are protected is an important area of the Bill. Senator Mulcahy seems to agree that we must take all precautions to ensure refugees are protected. To ensure the Minister is in a position to withhold permission, but not in a position to do so unreasonably, is an important precaution which can be tested in court.
I cannot understand the argument that we should let the UN write our legislation. We must listen to their recommendations and accept them if we believe they are right but we are a sovereign State and we must decide what is right for this country; we cannot have the UN deciding for us.
In response to the Senator's questions about High Court proceedings, my understanding is that the same procedure applies as in rape cases, that is, newspapers may not publish details which identify the applicant. In this case, we are discussing the identity of the applicant not being made known if the consent of the Minister is withheld, and such consent may not be unreasonably withheld. I have outlined the circumstances in which this measure will be protective of the interests of the asylum seeker.
I do not understand the thrust of the Senator's arguments. He appears to agree with the underlying principles of the section and as a practising barrister seems to accept the reality of what I say about many areas of court proceedings where identities and only identities are withheld. That is not a barrier to the facts of the story being told but it may be important to protect the identity of the applicant. If a Minister acts unreasonably, that action is subject to review by the court and I think that puts a heavy onus on any Minister to act reasonably in this area. I reiterate that in relation to this Bill it is necessary to strike a series of balances in terms of the refugees' interest, the public's right to know the identity of the applicant rather than the story and the broad public interest. I suggest that, in this section, given that the Minister's right to withhold her consent "shall not be unreasonably withheld", the balance is fairly struck.
We are speaking about degrees of an argument here. The Senator says he accepts the underlying principle and I am not aware of any evidence relating to court proceedings or proceedings of this nature which show that sections such as this have been abused. The section specifically provides that the consent shall not be unreasonably withheld and any Minister acting in relation to this section has to take that into account. I cannot break confidentiality but the reason I seem stickier on this point than might seem reasonable to Senator Mulcahy is that I have a number of cases in mind in which I know that the protection of a provision such as this is important.
I debated this point with an official of the National Union of Journalists. We had an extremely reasonable discussion in which I explained we were talking about identity and he accepted that. I invited him to write to me and to meet me in the Department to address the concerns of the NUJ but I regret to say the union has not done so. There was a statement and an interview, I responded and we had a discussion which ended amicably enough. My invitation to the NUJ was not responded to so my broad assumption is that the matter rests there. I sought to address any concerns the NUJ have but equally I want to address my concerns in relation to the specific cases about which I have spoken. For that reason I would have warmly welcomed an opportunity to meet the NUJ.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I will allow Senator Lee to speak briefly but at this stage the case and arguments for and against these amendments have been well made.
I do not speak as a lawyer and I entirely accept the bonafides and importance of what the Minister is trying to do. To return to a point I made the last day, in so far as the protection of identity is for the applicant's good, one has to support it, but if there is any suspicion that there might be concealment of identity because of interests the Minister might have, that would be a different matter.
The Minister mentioned the use of the word "unreasonably" but we do not know what a court would presume to be reasonable or unreasonable. If the Minister were to plead national interest, how would a court respond? Apart from that, what timescale is involved here? This issue has arisen time and again during the debate: can courts respond instantly? How long does this take? Might the issue be long over before the matter comes to court as to whether reasonableness arises?
Is the Minister in a position to indicate how this will work in practice? She is arguing that she knows better than the individual involved what is in his or her interest; that might objectively be the case but it is an intrusion on the liberty of the individual to decide what is in his or her interest. If it were possible to include the phrase "without the consent of that person after consultation with the Minister" or something of that order, I would prefer it to the phraseology currently in the Bill, which ultimately allows the Minister to tell applicants that since they do not know what is in their best interest, the Minister will decide for them.
I am considering withdrawing the amendment because I am in sympathy with what the Minister said. Senator Neville said my thinking is confused but it is not; there are two interests in conflict and it is probably impossible to reconcile them. The Minister could be right that a decision must be made on one side of the argument and almost certainly it is better made for the safety and welfare of the applicant than for any other reason. I disagreed with the agencies about the confidentiality of the appeal board — they wanted it to be non-confidential but I argued for the opposite.
The Minister said she understood it to be the case that High Court proceedings arising from this Bill would carry the same confidentiality as a rape or incest case. That might be so in terms of the reporting of that case — section 19 (2) states:
no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify a person as an applicant under this Act shall be published in a written publication available to the public or be broadcast...
However, this does not necessarily mean the court proceedings have to be held in camera.
Yes, but the judge might decide——
I think the Minister is adding too much to it. Unless there is an in camera provision, the subsection does not seem to exclude the possibility that a diplomat or observer of a country where there was oppression could go into court and take notes, which would defeat the Minister's purposes. Bearing that in mind, if the Minister accepts this is possible and notwithstanding that it may have been addressed, would she consider referring the matter back to the Office of the Attorney General for a final opinion? I think it is a pertinent point.
My last question relates to building up a body of expertise — I do not call it case law because the Minister is concerned about lawyers becoming involved, although they are involved in many other countries. The voluntary agencies will want to learn from these cases to discover patterns of conduct in other countries or to learn how best to represent applicants. There is no specific provision for the voluntary agencies to attend before the appeal board, except in a representative capacity. The prohibition on publication will prevent cases appearing in newspapers. If they are not allowed to be present in the High Court, there is a possibility there will be no public or specialised expertise built up. Having agreed with what the Minister has said, I am inclined to with-draw the amendment.
We are not talking about the facts of an application but the identity and identification of the applicant. An applicant would have to agree to the publicity and if it appears to the applicant that the Minister's consent is being unreasonably withheld, the applicant may with his or her lawyers or advisers apply to the courts. I am sure the courts would hear any such case with considerable alacrity. The net point is not the story but the identity of the applicant. It may seem I am labouring this point but it is important.
There are no in camera provisions in the Bill because we are not seeking to have a heavy hand; rather, we seek to strike a balance between the need in certain cases to protect the identity of the applicant while not inhibiting the publication of the story.
It is highly unlikely that NGOs will not be able to build up a knowledge of what happens in refugee cases. When a person arrives in this country he or she will receive the multilingual advice form which will contain the names and addresses of several NGOs. From the very beginning the NGOs are involved in the process. At present there is no law and applications are dealt with by the Department of Justice, the UNHCR and the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Since I became Minister of State at the Department of Justice there has not been a practical problem in this area, except in three cases where there was unwarranted identification of the applicants which resulted in disadvantage to them. I found it astonishing that in one case an embassy was contacted by a journalist for information about named asylum seekers. The embassy then contacted the Department of Justice.
I appeal to the Senator's sense of balance and practicality. There is no difficulty in this area at present and I am not aware that any of the agencies have suggested there are difficulties. Asylum seekers receive a form indicating the NGOs which they can contact. However, a balance must be made between telling the story and, in some cases, protecting the identity of the applicant. The balance is appropriately drawn in this case.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 38 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill."
Section 19 (1) states:
The Commissioner, the Appeal Board, the Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and their respective officers shall take all practicable steps to ensure that the identity of applicants is kept confidential.
It appears to envisage an active policing role by those categories in respect of any possible breach in the confidentiality of the applicant's identity. In so far as court procedures are concerned, would a situation arise under subsection (1) in which the Minister for Justice might apply to the court to have any hearings before the High Court held in camera? It seems there would be an obligation on the Minister for Justice to make such an application and that the Minister might be failing in his or her duty in not doing so. If that is the case, I am opposed to it.
It is only in the most exceptional of cases that in camera proceedings take place in the High Court — in family cases as a matter of practice and in incest and rape cases as a matter of law. However, in some of those cases legal practitioners or members of caring agencies are allowed in the court to accompany the alleged victims. If sub-section (1) gives an active role to the Minister to police a total confidentiality of the application, I oppose it.
I agree in general with Senator Mulcahy. However, the section places an onus on the various parties mentioned to protect the confidentiality of the applicant's identity. That is the practice in many areas. We are talking about a practical situation. The Senator is reading more into the section than is there. Confidentiality is required in many areas and there is an onus on parties involved in certain administrative areas to maintain the confidentiality of people's identities. It does not mean there cannot be a sharing of information to the parties legitimately involved in the area in question. There are no in camera provisions in the Bill. The Senator's fears are unreasonable and he is taking them several steps further than what is provided for in the Bill. I hope I have been of some reassurance to him.
I accept the Minister's assurances, although ministerial assurances given in the Houses of the Oireachtas are cold comfort when contrary decisions are made by the courts.
We are all subject to the courts.
Subsection (3) states: "shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both." As I understand the present law, one would be entitled to have a maximum summary conviction in the period of two years. Although I am not certain, I believe the fine could also be increased. If somebody breaches this provision — we all agree on its seriousness — people could lose their lives. Will the Minister consider a larger fine on summary conviction? Is there a need for a larger penalty on indictment? It is serious offence and the penalty could be seen to be light.
There is a sufficient deterrent to place on notice, the media and journalists in particular, that the breaching of the identity of an applicant is a serious matter. The provisions made are adequate. We are trying to strike a balance. In this case we are trying to strike a balance — admittedly in a protective way — in the interests of the applicant. If we were talking about a totally liberal disposition we might say there should be no restraint on the side of the applicant. The penalties are sufficiently severe. While the media are generally responsible, there have been a number of incidents, which I outlined to the House, where I would have been concerned.
I would like to make a point about the drafting of subsection (4), which states: "that the publication or broadcast in question was of such matter as is mentioned in subsection (2)." It would have been better to draft it as follows: "was of such a nature as to lead to the identity of the applicant". That is a drafting point which the Minister might take on board.
Should this be an offence of strict liability? There is enough scope in sub-section (4) for somebody to argue ignorance, which should never be an excuse for breach of the law. A strong case could be made for this, bearing in mind the extreme seriousness of this matter, with which I agree. We should consider making this an offence of strict liability. Although the Minister said that if the Minister's consent is unreasonably withheld they will go to the courts to get a speedy resolution, there is no guarantee of a speedy resolution in the courts of any matter. If a Minister disagreed that he or she was being unreasonable, they could appeal that decision to two or three courts, which could take five years.
In a case where a publication or a broadcast led the public to identify a refugee applicant, it would be a lot quicker to convict and it would bring irresponsible journalists — there are some — to heel. This should be an offence of strict liability with an automatic fine being imposed in circumstances where there has been a breach of section 19 (1) and (2).
Is the phrase "nor had reason to suspect" a recognised legal one? If it is not, it could lead to an interminable disquisition before the courts.
That phrase was provided by the parliamentary draftsman — draftswoman in this case — who is the expert in this area. This section is a balanced one. As regards Senator Mulcahy's earlier point, one can envisage situations where a journalist did not know the circumstances where they were misled. This section, which provides for a defence, is reasonable. We want to prevent the unscrupulous exploitation of a refugee by a journalist or vice versa. I argue that the balance is appropriately struck.
An area of which the legal departments of our newspapers, RTE and other broadcasters would be well apprised is the existence of these provisions in relation to the identification of applicants. The balance struck is fair in relation to protection, penalty and defence. We have tended to talk about the potential exploitation of refugees by a journalist; but, particularly with an unscrupulous applicant, it could happen the other way around. We are trying to strike a balance in relation to all three.
I take the Minister's second point, but I would disagree with it in principle. Offences of strict liability can be very unfair in that they do not give people a way out or excuse. As the Minister correctly pointed out, the consequences of some of these breaches could be serious. As regards the drafting of this subsection, I do not believe it is fair to try to defeat my argument by saying this is the wording approved by the parliamentary draftsman. I tabled an amendment which the Minister accepted because I had spotted a legal error. With respect, if I am capable of spotting one legal error, I am perhaps capable of spotting two. I am not saying this is an error but the wording of this line should be considered.
As regards subsection (5), does a broadcast include a transmission via the Internet or a computer? I would also like to ask about written publications, which perhaps answers the query I raised earlier. This subsection states: "does not include an indictment or other document prepared for use in particular legal proceedings." Does the phrase "particular legal proceedings" refer to appeals to the High Court by way of a judicial review or otherwise following a determination of the Minister, the commissioner or the appeal board? If so, the possibility is open that, incongruously, the identity of the applicant could be revealed in written affidavits because such documents come within the ambit of a document "prepared for use in particular legal proceeding". This point must be examined. Is it possible all the facts, including the person's identity which one is trying to keep confidential could be revealed through the back door?
The Senator is treating some of the subsections as if they were the leading elements of the section. The context of the section is reasonable action by the various parties involved to ensure the identity of applicants remains confidential. The qualification is that it is subject to the agreement of the applicant and to the Minister not withholding consent. Everything else is in the context of those leading elements.
The Senator's point about Internet proceedings is covered by subsection (5) which states, "...a record that is not in a legible form but which is capable of being reproduced in a legible form..."
Subsections (1) and (2) are relevant to the phrase "particular legal proceedings". They are the leading elements under which the Minister must consider whether he or she is acting unreasonably. We are trying to ensure it is practical. In some cases people may be anxious to tell their stories but that their identity is withheld. In other cases people may want their identity broadcast but the Minister may, while not acting unreasonably, withhold agreement to such a move.
The overall balance of the section's construction is intended to provide for the protection of refugees in a specific context in terms of the Minister not unreasonably withholding consent and the various parties to the application seeking to keep confidential the identity of the applicant. The purpose of the subsections is to explain and qualify the matter. However, it is not necessary to explain this to the Senator because he is a lawyer.
In relation to the wording of the section, as Minister I am subject to the advice of the parliamentary draftsman's office and the Attorney General because that is their job. I am not meant to be a drafter. I take their professional advice and that is reasonable.
I am sorry if one feels the debate is tedious. I want to conclude the matter as quickly as others. I am not trying to delay the proceedings but the function of Committee Stage is to mull over words. We are trying to iron out any problems or inconsistencies; it will be much more expensive and time consuming if people must litigate over problems or inaccuracies in the Bill. Even if it means the proceedings are slow, we must get it right and I am sure the Minister agrees with this point.
I do not believe publication on the Internet is a written publication or something which can be recorded in permanent form. That is incorrect.
It is a broadcast; it is included.
The Minister's said it was included under the definition of "written publication".
It is included in the Bill and that is what counts.
I do not see anything about the Internet or such communications.
The Bill mentions broadcast.
Is it a broadcast? That is news to me. Perhaps the Senator knows something I do not know and can explain it in her own way.
I ask the Senator to conclude his point.
The Minister did not answer my specific question about the phrase "or other document prepared for use in particular legal proceedings". Does this refer to legal proceedings outside the Bill?
I cannot presume what legal proceedings may or may not take place in relation to any person in this country under whatever status. No Bill could set out to do so. This is a definition section which seeks broadly to capture the areas where the identity of the applicant may become known in ways which breach the leading subsections (1) and (2). We are discussing a practical Bill under which we must work with applicants. This also applies to the various parties set out in the various sections. I cannot presume what legal proceedings may or may not be taken by any of the parties or applicants.
If that is the case the position is worse than I thought because the Minister is including the possibility that, in legal proceedings taken under the Bill, or a review of a decision made by somebody with responsibility for the Bill, all the facts, including the identity of the applicant, could be mentioned in affidavits prepared in furtherance of the legal proceedings. The Minister is aware that affidavits are lodged in the central office of the High Court. They are public documents and anybody could go in and read the identity of an applicant. This would make the entire section useless. The section should contain a total prohibition on the inclusion of the name or identity of the applicant in documents prepared for legal proceedings under the Bill.
The Minister should not say I am clutching at straws. People's names are included on documents in affidavits lodged in the central office of the High Court. It would not be beyond the wit or wisdom of a representative of some country where there was oppression to go to the High Court office, look at the documents and learn the identity of the applicant. If this possibility is open in the Bill, why does the earlier part of the section mention keeping the identity of the applicant confidential?
Acting Chairman
As I interpreted it, the Minister said there is no way she can predict if people will go to court and challenge the legislation in the future and she cannot prevent them doing so.
That is accepted but we are discussing the identity of the applicant. I have not yet received a clear reply whether the identity of the applicant will be on public court documents if such proceedings are taken under the Bill.
The answer is yes because there are no in camera provisions in the Bill in relation to any High Court or court proceedings which may be undertaken. This is an attempt to strike a series of reasonable balances. The Senator may feel the prohibitions are not sufficiently severe, but the prohibitions on the publication of identity of applicants strike a reasonable balance in protecting the applicant. They do not seek to censure the courts or court documents and therefore there are no in camera provisions.
I understand the position is that people attending hearings in the court will know the person's name. The names will be on legal documents but there will be a prohibition on the publication of those names. All the Bill does is prohibit the publication of the identity of the refugee. This is what we have been discussing for the past hour and a half. I see a situation where the only prohibition is in the publication of the identity of the person.
This section should be opposed because it is a nonsense.
On the one hand, "The Commissioner, the Appeal Board, the Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and their respective officers shall take all practicable steps to ensure that the identity of applicants is kept confidential." Similarly, various people are prohibited from publishing material which will lead members of the public to identify a person. Yet, if there are documents before the court which are publicly available, this section will permit the name and identity of the person to be on those court documents. For instance, a member of Government or an agent of a country where oppression is taking place could send themselves or their agents into the High Court, get these documents, identify the name of the person who is bringing the application, discover all the background material and all the affidavits that were sworn. Do not forget some of these affidavits could be sworn by persons who are in the original countries of oppression and, therefore, very vulnerable to attack. This exposes them to huge danger. This matter could be consistently dealt with by a prohibition on naming the person by their correct name on written legal documents. There would be a total prohibition and protection of identity.
I will not be a party to passing a section which on the one hand seeks to protect identity and on the other admits to the possibility that that identity will come out. It will go through the channels of people who want to know about it, if not into the public arena. People will say I am worrying too much. The Minister of State knows the kind of political intrigue and pressures that are brought to bear in these cases and must admit that if the identity of the people is on the legal documents they and their families back home could be in trouble. Given that I withdrew my amendment on the basis of what the Minister of State said, it would not be unfair for the Minister of State to consider copperfastening the protection of identity by bringing an amendment to the final words of the "written publication" paragraph to the effect that the identity of the person in written legal documents would be protected.
Senator Mulcahy has come full circle since we started this debate. Initially, the Senator wanted openness; he wanted information fully available to NGOs and the Press. The Senator now wants everything in camera; no information must be available. This counteracts the Senator's argument that NGOs must have relevant case laws or experience of what is happening in the area. You cannot have it both ways. Names in rape cases are not published, but the names do appear on legal documents and are available to the people Senator Mulcahy has mentioned. The Minister of State is trying to strike a balance. If somebody unscrupulous enough wants to find out the name of any refugee they can do so. They can employ people to do so, such as private detectives. All this Bill can do is give reasonable protection to ensure we do not facilitate the easy publication and identification of names in the public arena.
I have not come full circle. I told the House honestly I was divided on this and the Minister of State accepts there are two conflicting theories and two conflicting aims. There should be a body of expertise. I have no problem with the agencies being in court and hearing the cases. For example, it is possible for the courts to change the names of the applicants on the affidavits or to take what measures they deem necessary to protect the identity of the applicants. In the X case it was not Joanna Jones; it was Madame X; it was the X girl. The name on the proceedings should be blotted out so that the identity of the person could not be known. I am being totally consistent. Senator Neville has a bit of a nerve to say I have come full circle when I have openly and honestly said I was divided vis-à-vis the two competing things.
It is the right to free speech. Senator Neville is entitled to make his views known.
Senator Neville accused me of coming full circle and contradicting myself, which I have not done. I am appealing to the Minister of State to insert words in the Bill such that in legal documents before the courts the identity of the applicant is protected.
I would love to continue listening to this all day. I have sympathy with Senator Mulcahy's position. It is true he has changed his position in one way, but he did so by accepting the general thrust of the need to protect identity. Within the terms of reference of the section, he is pointing to an inconsistency in it. That is how I understand it. I speak with the handicap of not knowing how the courts operate. It is a little peculiar that one has this section blocking possibilities of identity and then there is an out clause —"does not include" etc. — on lines 30 and 31. The analogy with rape is not a valid analogy in these circumstances. There is no danger of rape victims or their relatives being subject to attack; maybe there is in some cases. There can be in certain circumstances and I can see possibilities of that. The situation we have here is a more wide ranging one. I trust the Minister of State's judgment on this. She has thought about this deeply. Will she ponder on finding a more appropriate phraseology or on ensuring greater consistency between these lines and the general thrust of the section to try to copperfasten it further within her own terms of reference?
The Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for censoring court documents. While theoretically documents in the central office are public documents, the practical situation is quite different. In cases where there are prohibitions on the publication of the identity, our courts are open. It is open to anyone to go into a court case and for a neighbour, perhaps, to see the parties to the court case and to see them coming out of court, just as it is possible for people to sit outside the offices of the refugee agency or stand in Stephen's Green and outside the offices of the Department of Justice looking at those who come in and out and drawing certain conclusions from that. The argument in relation to the section is to draw up a reasonable balanced framework. I would suggest to the Senator that the section does in fact do that.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill."
This section provides for the prohibition of false information and alteration of identity documents. Section 20 (2) states that "If a person, for the purposes of or in relation to an application under section 8, gives or makes to the Commissioner, the Appeal Board or to an authorised officer any statement or information which is to his or her knowledge false or misleading in any material particular, that person shall be guilty of an offence”. Many people coming to a country seeking refugee status will be travelling on false documents. We must ensure that the issue of duplicitous applications does not get intermingled with that of genuine refugees travelling on false documentation.
I am worried about the wording of section 20 (2). The normal problem encountered is that a proposed asylum seeker upon first arriving in a new country gives false information and in many cases tells lies. According to the experts, such people are normally wary, suspicious, tired, bewildered etc. They may have had to tell many lies to have got this far and it may take them a period of time in a new country to stop doing so and to give a full picture of their circumstances, where they come from etc. It would be a serious matter if they gave a false story to the commissioner or appeal board — one would think they would have settled down at that stage. However, I am worried about "or to an authorised officer any statement or information which is to his or her knowledge false or misleading". Although "authorised officer" is defined in section 1 (1), I am worried it might be too wide.
Section 1 (1) states that an authorised officer "means a person authorised in writing by the Commissioner to exercise the powers conferred on an authorised officer by or under this Act".
Senator Neville has expressed the point perfectly and I do not want to hold up the House by speaking excessively.
Why is there such a large fine and prison term under section 20 (5) (b)? Is it absolutely necessary that the Garda is able to arrest such a person without warrant under section 20 (6)? I would have thought there would be ample time in such circumstances for the Garda to get a warrant to effect an arrest. It is dangerous to extend in many Bills — we have seen it in other areas — the Garda's powers to arrest without a warrant.
If the Senator reads section 20 (5) again he will see that it refers to somebody who "sells or supplies". We are not aiming this provision at the applicants but at those who may be in the business of supplying forged identity documents and trading in human beings on a false basis. Unfortunately, such trade does exist internationally and we must protect ourselves from it. These provisions, in the context of what we know about the trade and trafficking of human beings in certain parts of the world, are important and appropriate.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Government amendment No. 39:
In page 23, subsection (3) (a), line 15, to delete "reason" and substitute "reasons".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 21, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
This section covers a tricky but important area. The Minister must have a power of revocation. I am delighted to see that in so far as the Minister might exercise that power, there is an appeal to the High Court. While this is not the place to make a policy statement, if the numbers of refugees coming to this country increase substantially over the next few years, how actively will the Minister go down the revocation route?
Subsection (1) (e) refers to a person who "can no longer, because the circumstances in connection with which he or she has been recognised as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself or herself of the protection of the country of his or her nationality." That envisages a case where, for example, somebody was being oppressed because of a civil war in their country and if it ended and peaceful conditions came, the Minister could then consider using her powers of revocation. What would be the theory and practice of that in regard to our Bosnian refugees, for example? When this Bill is passed, now that the Bosnian situation has been sorted out to a large extent by the United Nations, it could be argued that the conditions under this subsection are such that the Minister could invoke it.
There does not seem to be in the Bill, and it should be in this section, a power to deport. Section 9 gives leave to enter or remain in the State. Would it not have been more appropriate to include in this section a specific power to the Minister to be able to deport people?
I also want to make a point about the list of circumstances where the Minister is satisfied there should be a revocation. Where one specifies a list of circumstances in which a power can be exercised, there is a rule of statutory interpretation that if other circumstances exist they are excluded. There does not appear to be a catch-all formula for circumstances in which the Minister can use the power of revocation; perhaps there should be. It could be argued that such a provision would be dangerous and open to abuse. However, the safeguard is the appeal mechanism to the High Court. When the Minister lists the circumstances in which he or she can act and then finds a circumstance in which he or she wants to act, the court might decide the Minister cannot act because the list has been published. These issues should be properly addressed in this section.
The Bosnians arrived in Ireland as programme refugees. I have spoken publicly to the Bosnian community and my comments were recorded by the national media. I told the community that Bosnians who had come to Ireland as programme refugees were more than welcome to stay here. Equally, members of the community who wish to return home because the situation there has changed are free to do so.
We have facilitated various members of the Bosnian community returning home to examine the situation there. This has been done under the auspices of the refugee agency. Some of these Bosnian refugees came here because of their injuries and some were serving soldiers. Many of them would feel an intense desire to return to Bosnia. Other refugees came from areas where there appears to be no possibility of their being able to return. The only way they can return is if they have relatives there or there is an opportunity to settle in another part of the country. The Bosnians are welcome to stay but they are also free to return home if that is their choice.
The circumstances in which a declaration would be revoked could only be expected to arise infrequently. However, situations can change. Somebody might come to this country as a refugee and some years later the circumstances giving rise to their refugee status would no longer apply. The section provides for such a decision, although it would be most unlikely.
Hungarian refugees arrived in Ireland following the Hungarian uprising. Some of them are still living here. The circumstances which led to them arriving here as refugees no longer apply but those people would, in general, no longer describe themselves as refugees. Indeed, they would be in a position to apply for citizenship and many of them have done so, as have many of the Bosnians who have more than three years' residence in this country.
A revocation is most likely to occur where the commissioner and/or the appeal board and the various Departments were seriously misled by an applicant and where an application was granted on false or spurious grounds. I do not expect that to arise frequently. There are clauses in the Bill which provide for an appeal. There is also the clause which allows the Minister to grant humanitarian leave to stay, even where technically refugee status might be revoked because of certain circumstances. I cannot envisage such circumstances arising frequently; it would be a very rare occurrence.
With regard to the Bosnian refugees, we are happy for those who arrived as programme refugees to stay. Equally we will understand if some members of the community wish to return home in the context of the Dayton agreement. The Senator referred to a catch-all section. I believe it would be excessive and that is why it is not included.
The Minister of State must be realistic and agree that there is a distinct possibility that there will be substantial increases in the numbers of refugees coming to this country, whether they are programme refugees or otherwise. According to the Irish Refugee Council, in 1991 there were 31 arrivals and by 1995 that figure had risen to 424. That is a huge increase.
The Minister of State attends EU meetings and will be aware that Germany is talking about burden sharing. Burden sharing will mean that we will have to take a proportion of the large number of refugees who arrive in the largest refugee receiving countries. The power to revoke a declaration may have to be used to a great degree. Hundreds of thousands of refugees arrive in Germany every couple of years. If there were, God forbid, civil war in places like the former Soviet Union, India or the Middle East, it is not inconceivable that large numbers of refugees would come to Ireland. If the circumstances giving rise to that refugee problem ceased, a Minister for Justice under this section could be under pressure to exercise the power of revocation and deportation. The Minister of State did not address the deportation issue which I suggested should have been included in this section.
Under section 21 (1) (e) the Minister would have power to revoke the declarations in respect of potentially large numbers of people. Those people would have a right of appeal to the High Court. It is not fair to answer my query by referring to a small number of Hungarians and Bosnians and saying they are welcome to stay. It may not always be the case that large numbers of refugees would be welcome to stay in Ireland in circumstances where the reason for their leaving their country of origin has changed. That is the rationale of this section. I am not commenting either way on that but I would like to have some information on it.
I am also not clear about the Minister's reference to programme refugees; I am not clear if section 21 caters for them. Programme refugees can, in their own time, apply for declaration. They do not get a declaration automatically by virtue of a Government decision to take in a group of programme refugees. They must apply for such a declaration. Incidentally, there does not appear to be provision for a group application by programme refugees for refugee status. From the wording of the Bill, it appears that each individual member of a group would be obliged to apply for refugee status. However, that is merely a technicality. Does section 21 apply to programme refugees? Does a ministerial decision made under section 21 (1) (e) have the effect of reversing a Government decision in relation to programme refugees in circumstances where large numbers of refugees might face deportation?
Section 21 (5) contains another item of concern and involves a person appealing to the High Court against a decision of the Minister to make a declaration of revocation. The section also states that the High Court may, as it thinks proper, on the hearing of the appeal, confirm the decision of the Minister or direct the Minister to with-draw the revocation of the declaration. Not that one would wish to fetter the discretion of the High Court in any way in such circumstances, but there are no grounds listed as to the considerations the High Court should enter into when deciding whether the Minister had properly exercised discretion under section 21. The section is completely open and contains no directions for the guidance of the High Court.
Section 21 does not contain grounds upon which the High Court might act, such as the Minister acting in bad faith, without authority or capriciously. On what basis can the High Court decide that the reason for the refusal has not been complied with? If, for example, the Minister makes a decision under section 21 (1) (e), is it for the High Court to decide whether the circumstances in the country of origin had ceased to exist? Is it the responsibility of the High Court to decide that the Minister had not properly considered the matter? These points must be clarified.
With regard to programme refugees, seeking a specific provision to deal with the revocation of any declaration regarding such refugees seems to defeat the Senator's purpose. By definition, these refugees enter the country with the Government's permission. In legal terms, this represents the granting of a licence which can be revoked at any time. This is made clear by the provisions in section 24.
Any appeal to the High Court would be on the basis of general administrative law. The judge would be obliged to consider whether the Minister acted within his or her power and whether their decision complied with natural justice. Such matters are not for this House to decide, they are the responsibility of the High Court.
This section deals with the revocation of a declaration that a person is a refugee and has been for some time. As with other sections of the Bill, careful checks and balances are being drawn to protect the asylum seeker — the person being granted refugee status. Equally, it offers a mechanism for the State to protect itself where the process has been abused. I believe this is an appropriate provision.
In relation to Senator Mulcahy's point relating to the High Court, I could not presume with regard to that court's decisions on particular cases. The Senator referred to his frequent contacts with the various NGOs which are expert in this area. I understand that these organisations and the UNHCR are satisfied with this section. I have not encountered the concerns expressed by the Senator on previous occasions.
Earlier I specifically replied to Senator Mulcahy's concerns about programme refugees, who are not the subject of this section but of section 24. I am anxious to reassure the Bosnian community at all times as to their position in this country. I have been glad to put such reassurances on public record, even though they do not come under section 21. Perhaps I should have waited for our deliberations on section 24 in that regard.
Is section 21 agreed?
I am not finished.
Very little progress is being made.
I am sorry but I did not draft the Bill. It is not for me to rush its enactment. The Minister of State stated that section 21 does not apply to programme refugees.
A "programme refugee" does not receive a declaration that he or she is a refugee. It is declared by order of Government that a particular group of people shall be allowed to enter the country as programme refugees. Section 24, upon which I do not wish to presume because it may be discussed later, seeks to specifically address some of the questions relating to programme refugees. Such refugees are separate from individual seekers of asylum in Ireland. Programme refugees are provided for by order of the Government.
I ask that the Cathaoirleach not rush me because this is a very important issue. That Minister of State stated that the power of revocation does not apply to programme refugees. The net effect is that, notwithstanding the fact that individual persons who may be programme refugees can apply, section 24, does not grant any rights to programme refugees to appeal to the High Court about a Government decision.
We are not discussing section 24.
I am aware of that. However, Senator Gallagher and the Minister of State referred to section 24.
They did so in the context of points raised earlier.
Senator Mulcahy referred to section 24 in the first instance.
We are dealing with section 21.
We are dealing with that section and nothing else?
The Senator will be able to discuss section 24 later.
This is very important because the Minister of State stated that section 21 will not apply to programme refugees. It is for this reason that I am questioning the provisions of the section. Should not programme refugees come within the ambit of section 21 in terms of revocation? I am not straying from the point when I state that section 21 gives the Minister the power to decide that the circumstances for granting refugee status no longer exist in the country of origin. The Minister can, therefore, revoke the declaration. The Minister cannot contradict this point because it is in the Bill.
A "programme refugee" is not a recipient of such a declaration. A "programme refugee" enters the State by way of an order of the Government. This is arrived at following arrangements with the UNHCR which suggested that, in the event of civil war, strife or disturbance in a particular country, we should share the burden by accepting refugees who flee that country. I cannot see why the section should apply to the programme refugees. However, if the Senator's fear relates to somebody being deported from this country, Senators welcomed the earlier section in the Bill which prevented refoulement or deportation, except where people were given rights of access to the courts and so on.
Section 21 deals with recipients of a declaration of refugee status which, under the seven or eight conditions laid out in the section, may be revoked. I have said that is extremely unlikely and has not been used in practice.
We have not had large numbers of refugees yet.
It is inappropriate to bring programme refugees into this section. We can have a debate on programme refugees under section 24. The Senator raised specifically the question of the Bosnian community in this country. I was anxious to put on record my public comments that that community and others are welcome to stay but we understand they might wish to go. I simply wanted to offer reassurance on that point, but perhaps I should have left it to section 24. I was worried that false concerns might be raised for that community, despite my public remarks. I welcomed the opportunity to put those remarks on the record. Section 21 deals with people who have got a declaration of refugee status under this Bill — in other words, individual asylum seekers.
That does not satisfy me. The Minister is being given wide ranging and sweeping powers under this section to annul a person's refugee status. That does not apply in this section to programme refugees. In other words, in so far as this is the section dealing with revocation, the checks and balances and appeals to the High Court will not be available to programme refugees. That is a form of discrimination. An individual refugee who gets a declaration of refugee status under this section may — not "will"— find themselves being sent back. The Minister of State seems to have a better crystal ball than I. Perhaps, she could tell us her thinking on burden sharing and the reality of Ireland taking refugees in the future.
That has nothing to do with section 21.
Burden sharing certainly has nothing to do with the section. It is dealing with a different type of refugee. I ask the Senator, with due respect to the other Members of the House, to be as brief as possible.
Section 21 creates an unfair discrimination between refugees who have a declaration of their status and programme refugees. The onus is on the Minister of State to explain and justify such discrimination.
I referred to this before and I thought I had made it clear. The distinction between programme refugees and asylum seekers is obviously not clear to Senator Mulcahy. Programme refugees, as defined in section 24, are those who are allowed to enter our country on the licence of the Government. It is not a grant to an individual asylum seeker and, therefore, cannot be revoked. This section deals with the revocation of the declaration of asylum status to an individual. What has not been granted cannot be revoked. We should leave it at that. Programme refugees are here on the licence of the Government. That is clear and we have no difficulty with it.
To discriminate between the balls of Senator Mulcahy and those of the Minister of State, crystal or otherwise, is beyond my intellectual powers. This is a very simple matter as I understand it, but perhaps I am just too simple-minded. Senator Gallagher has confirmed that programme refugees are not subject to the form of revocation envisaged in this section. If they are not subject to this form of revocation, there is no question of them being in a position to require the machinery for an appeal. That seems reasonably simple to me; in fact, it is so simple that even I can understand it.
I want to get this section concluded before 6 p.m.
We were talking about the Bosnians. There were newspaper reports of men who escaped from Zepa and Srebrenica and who hid in caves in the area for the winter. When they appeared they were very quickly given back by the IFOR forces to the Serbs. Could the Department — this will give the Minister of State something else to think about this evening — make representations regarding those men? The Dayton agreement allows for 72 hours to elapse before people have to be given back. These people seem to been returned to the Serbs with great haste, having escaped for a whole winter in the mountains. It is very sad to see this happening. Knowing the great concern which the Tánaiste and the Minister of State have expressed regarding this matter over the last few months, I would be most grateful if she could inform me of the present situation.
It might be appropriate for the Minister of State to reply to that first because I am returning to section 21.
Briefly, Senator.
Section 21 lays down very strict guidelines for the Minister in the area of revocation of a declaration. They are not sweeping powers; they are controlled with very strict procedures. There are strict guidelines on revocation, there are strict procedures under subsection (3) and there is recourse to the High Court under subsection (5) if they are not satisfied. These very strict guidelines and procedures ensure the Minister does not have sweeping powers Senator Mulcahy claimed.
The points raised by Senator Henry do not relate to either section 21 or section 24 but I will undertake to give her a more detailed reply on the issue. I do not think it is appropriate for me to take up the time of the House discussing it in detail. I will come back to the Senator on it.
Question put and declared carried.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.