Amendment No. 3, in the name of Deputy O'Donoghue, is related to amendments Nos. 40, 55, 81, 99, 106 and 118; amendment No. 4 is an alternative to amendment No. 3; amendment No. 41 is an alternative to amendment No. 40; amendment No. 100 is an alternative to amendment No. 99; and amendment No. 107 is an alternative to amendment No. 106. I therefore propose that we take amendments Nos. 3, 4, 40, 41, 55, 81, 99, 100, 106, 107 and 118 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 6, subsection (2), lines 17 and 18, to delete "in the interest of national security or public policy (‘ordre public’) and substitute “for compelling reasons of national security or public order”.
Everyone knows the objective of this legislation is that Ireland would fulfil its obligations under the 1951 United Nations Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
In that context, amendment No. 3 deals with the issuing of a travel document by the Minister to a person who has been granted refugee status. Section 4 (2) gives the Minister the power to refuse to issue such a travel document on the basis of national security or public policy. Nobody disagrees that the Minister should have the right to refuse to issue a travel document on the grounds of national security. However, the same argument cannot be made with great conviction for refusing a travel document on the basis of public policy. The convention does not use the words "public policy" but the more restrictive term "public order". The words "public policy" are ambiguous and open to different interpretations. Their meaning may be subject to great change, depending on the circumstances.
Amendment No. 4 is the same as the amendment tabled by Deputy O'Donoghue and restricts the circumstances envisaged by the 1951 convention in which the Minister can refuse to issue travel documents to refugees in relation to whom a declaration is in force. It is not open to the Government to argue that “ordre public” translates as public policy. Article 28 of the convention refers only to public order; it does not mention public policy, a broad sweeping term which may change from Government to Government and from party to party. What is the definition of public policy? Article 28 of the convention refers only to public order, but the Government has translated the term“ordre public” as public policy. This broad definition is open to abuse and to change, depending on the mood of the Minister of the day. The Minister should only be able to refuse travel documents to a refugee in relation to whom a declaration is in force for “compelling reasons of national security or public order”.
These amendments deal with the term "public policy". Under section 9(15) an asylum seeker may be refused leave to remain in the State on the grounds that he or she poses a threat to public policy. The broad interpretation of that term is a cause of great concern to Amnesty International and the Irish Refugee Council. There are objections to the term being used in the legislation. In section 11, for example, in relation to an investigation by the Commissioner of an application, the Minister, or the Minister for Foreign Affairs, is permitted to withhold information on the grounds of public policy. Amendment No. 55 deals with that section. It is assumed the term should have been "public order" but that it was broadened to include "public policy", which is also included in section 16 in connection with appeals to the Appeal Board. Information can be withheld on the grounds of public policy. The interests of natural justice are not served by withholding information.
Section 18 allows the Minister discretion to refuse permission to a dependent member of the family of a refugee to enter or reside in the State on the grounds of public policy. Amnesty International, the Irish Refugee Council and individuals believe that using the term "public policy" when refusing permission to a member of the family of a refugee to enter the State is not the correct way to proceed.
Section 20 deals with the prohibition of false information and the alteration of identity documents. Section 21(1)(g) allows for the revocation of a declaration on the grounds of public policy. My objections are the same as those I outlined earlier. Amendment No. 118 refers to programme refugees in section 24. The Minister is given the power in the interests of public policy to refuse to issue a travel document. Many people are concerned that this power will mean a person could be refused a travel document on grounds which were never envisaged by the Geneva Convention.
I have tried to be as succinct as possible in my discussion of these amendments which I hope the Minister will consider.
We have grave concerns about the definition of "public policy"; I hope it is because the term "ordre public” does not translate well or someone misinterpreted its meaning. The concept of public policy is so broad, is open to interpretation and can vary not only from Government to Government but, indeed, from party to party and individual to individual depending on the power of the individuals in Government at that time, that there is a major problem with the it. The public order policies of some countries are what originally probably drove out the majority of people who seek safe haven in Ireland. We would have a problem with that. It is only a matter of interpretation and how one person as opposed to another views the translation. Since this phrase is so open to that type of interpretation, it must be rectified now.
We have the opportunity now to put in place legislation which will serve not only this country but other countries too. There are aspects of this Bill which are so advanced that I find it gratifying to be part of the process of enacting it. For example, the measures for an unaccompanied child are way beyond refugee measures in other countries and the Minister is to be congratulated for that.
It is just a matter of getting it right now. It is a small issue but it is one which is so open to misinterpretation that I feel it needs to be put in place now.
I share the reservations that have been expressed about the use of the phrase "public policy". First, I would raise a linguistic issue. From my knowledge of the French language, "ordre public” is entirely different to public policy and the translations of Deputy O’Donoghue and Deputy O’Donnell, when they referred to public order in their amendments, is, I believe, the correct phrase to use. Indeed, it more narrowly confines within our concept of “public order” the discretion granted to a Minister.
In the context of these amendments, I want to put in context the manner in which we have administered our asylum laws to date. I want to do so despite the fact that the Minister is now telling us that this is a new departure because I am conscious that it is same Department, subject to an appeals procedure, which will continue to administer our asylum laws. I have not seen anything to date through various changes of Government to indicate that any magnificent different departure is being adopted by any Government of any political persuasion. I say that because I have some interesting statistics on the asylum issue.
In the five year period between 1991 and 1995, there were just under 1,000 applications for political asylum, 16 of which were granted. That is an extraordinarily low number. During the same period, we refused to recognise someone was a political refugee but allowed 29 people, whom we did not so recognise, to remain in this country for humanitarian reasons. I always find it difficult to cross that boundary between working out why someone who needs to stay here for humanitarian reasons should be deprived of the right of political asylum.
We have operated an extraordinarily restrictive and, on occasions, sectarian and prejudiced system in dealing with applications for asylum since the foundation of the State. For example, if we were to provide a public policy exception, be it the granting of travel documents or a policy reason for denying asylum to someone in the context of some of the other sections, i.e., section 16 and, more fundamentally, section 17, let us look at how we have operated that in the past and how we might operate it in the future.
From departmental documents which have been disclosed under the 30 year rule, we now know that in communications made to the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Justice during the late 1930s, 1940s and up to the early 1950s Governments were being cautioned by representatives of the State not to admit Jewish people into Ireland because they might in some way contaminate the country or might have a different lifestyle that could do damage to the unique lifestyle of others in this country. At a time when people were trying to flee Nazi persecution, the public policy of the State was to keep the doors closed. Doors were being kept closed by officials and civil servants and, on occasions, I think the political heads of Departments did not always realise the reasons. Even more astonishing is the fact that doors were kept closed after 1945 because of the belief that to allow some of the remaining survivors of the Holocaust into this country would in some way do damage to the national fabric. This unsung, unstated public policy was administered.
We might look back on those days and say that it could not happen again. I wonder seriously if some people, who feel under threat because of civil war and racial tensions in some of the African countries in which there are difficulties at present, want to come here, how we are to know that there is an unspoken policy to not allow too many non-white people into this country. I am not saying that is of necessity the case although, from my contacts with this issues over the years, I have reason to believe that one's application for asylum, right to a visa simply to visit or application for citizenship may be treated extraordinarily differently depending on from where one originates and one's ethnic background. I am concerned that that is still an unspoken issue.
Let us look at the public policy issue in the context of section 17 since we are linking these sections. Let us assume that we are about to do a major beef deal with the Government of Iran. Let us assume that £6 million worth of the best Irish beef is to be sold to the Government of Iran and, lo and behold, a refugee from Iran, who is seeking asylum here, seeks travel documents and a declaration that they are a political refugee. Let us assume it is public knowledge that they are living here and seeking that declaration and it is made known quietly by the Government of Iran through the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, that not granting the person asylum might facilitate the beef contract. If it was £6 million or £60 million worth of Irish beef in the context of an offer of a long-term contract the sale of which might be at risk, who is to say the issue of "public policy" will not intervene to result in us denying that individual political asylum?
In my view, it would intervene. I say that on the basis of knowledge because when the problems arose relating to Salman Rushdie and the Iranian regime were funding, as they continue to fund, the Hamas movement in the Middle East, which is bent on destroying the peace process there and on bombing, shooting and killing people, and there was a major flare-up in that area, there was little being said about it in this country. Why? Because we had sent a delegation to Iran to restore the sale of beef which had previously terminated.
I am totally opposed to the idea that in the context of an appeal against a refusal to grant political asylum certain information may be withheld from the appellant for "public policy reasons". It is entirely wrong and we should not take that course.
There are many good elements in this Bill but we want to get it right. We have not really approached this issue properly since the foundation of the State. It has taken nearly three since I published the Refugee Protection Bill for us to get a Bill of this nature to Committee Stage. It looks like this Bill will progress to enactment and we should not leave discretionary loopholes which could by the use of the public policy provision negate the good in the Bill.
A future Government might decide as a public policy issue that granting asylum to people proves awkward and it might be better policy to step outside it. I do not question the bona fides of this Government but we should not leave a statutory Trojan horse in place. Let us deal with the issue in a correct and up-front manner; let us have no secret reasons for denying people political asylum in the future. There is one genuine reason for denying an application which is that to so do would create a real danger for the security of the State and its citizens. That should be the only reason to deny a valid and proper application for political asylum.
The purpose of the amendments is to challenge the defective translation of "ordre public” as “public policy” in the Bill. The issue has the potential to change entirely the nature of the protections being put in place and undermine the scope of the Bill. I am glad other members have supported the thrust of the amendments.
We are not engaged in putting in place procedures — procedures are in place already under the UNHCR which have been shown to be inadequate and defective when people sought refuge here. We are putting in place a law of uniform application, to tighten up procedures and rein in the exercise of an executive discretionary power which has been abused in the past. We want to put in place transparent procedures to rein in and determine the use of that executive power. For that reason public policy as a grounds for refusing a variety of protections under this legislation is worrying in that it has the capacity to undermine the purpose of the legislation.
I am grateful for the support of the other members of the committee and I look forward to their continued support when we press these amendments. This is a vital matter. The text of the convention appended to the Bill refers to "public order" and does not mention "public policy".
We are debating the interpretation of the term "public policy". If asked I could not relate to anyone what public policy is on any matters we debate in the Oireachtas because it does not seem to exist. We can debate Government policy, party political policy or public opinion, but I have yet to find out the definition of public policy.
The Bill clarifies a lot of procedures not known to people, especially information on how to apply, how the procedures work and how to make sure they get an adequate hearing of their case. The Minister mentioned the need for clarity in the procedures for everybody — the officials who will operate them and the refugees. The term "public policy" does not really exist in our terminology; it may be used inadvertently to describe some things we are not sure about. However, the term is incorrect. In deciding whether a person is to be given refugee status what will be taken into account is whether they will affect public order in Ireland or undermine the security of the State.
Under the provisions of this Bill and the definition of this provision I hope that every refugee will receive the same consideration irrespective of where they come from. Those who apply for refugee status are those who are seeking the assistance of another nation and refuge from a regime they cannot live under. Public policy does not mean anything to me and if it is to be used in the context of clarifying issues that may affect vulnerable people it will not work. It needs to be reviewed.
I concur with what has been said. The issue of ministerial discretion has to be at the core of this Bill and by the use of an undefined term — whether it be "public policy" or "ordre public”— we are at risk of unleashing a measure of discretion we would not wish to have there. Neither the English nor the French term is defined in the definition section of the Bill and the effect is to create a subjective notion of public policy which is entirely in the eyes of the Minister making the decision.
As Deputy Shatter said it is not difficult to think of examples where public policy becomes a political consideration or a matter of political convenience. What is our public policy in relation to Tibetan refugees seeking asylum in this country? Do we unofficially take the view that Tibet is part of China and that any Tibetan refugees are an embarrassment and ignore the issue, or do we treat them as we might everybody else? I am not looking for an answer to that question but if we leave that concept in the Bill such questions will inevitably arise and I am not sure they will be satisfactorily responded to in future. If the concept is to stay it must be defined more clearly.
This term was used in the previous Bill by Deputy O'Donoghue's colleague, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, when she was Minister for Justice. We have included this term on the advice of the Attorney General after some discussion with him. The problem with the term "public order" as suggested is that it could be interpreted by a court in a narrow sense, that is in the law and order sense. However, in the context of the convention "public order" encompasses the broader public policy concept, meaning the public good or interests of the State or the community. This is the meaning usually given to the term. This is also clear from the use in the French text of the convention of the term "ordre public” which includes the concept of public policy. The French and English texts of the convention have equal legal standing which gives full weight to the contention that the broader public policy concept is the correct term to be incorporated in the Bill.
The select committee may be interested to know that one of the declarations made by Ireland in acceding to the convention in 1956 specifically referred to the public policy meaning of the term "public order". There is very specific advice from the Attorney General on this matter and I am satisfied that, in the interests of national security and public policy, "ordre publique” is the appropriate provision.
Deputy Shatter referred specifically to a period not covered in the recent history of this State or the Department. There has been no suggestion in recent times of abuses by any specific Minister or the Department in relation to the whole question of travel documents. I asked the officials and no such case is known to them.
I will reverse the example given by Deputy Shatter in relation to the Middle East and suggest that if the person who had been given refugee status in Ireland was a member of Hamas — in other words, one was looking through the telescope from the other direction — he might not have the same point of view? One of the difficulties in relation to the whole question of refugee status — and this is where the convention is such a protection — is that there are genuine differences of opinion as to what constitutes an oppressed or persecuted person. There are genuine political differences of views which may, in turn, reflect all sorts of other differences.
The function of this Bill is to set up an independent procedure with an independent commissioner and appeals tribunal composed of qualified people. I find the suggestion unacceptable that the Bill will somehow become a vehicle for abuse of refugees. I accept Deputy Shatter's genuine concerns about difficulties in relation to cases in recent years. However, the difficulties have not arisen in relation to this area. When one leaves a degree of discretion to the Minister, one has to ask if there is evidence of ministerial abuse. There is no such evidence of abuse by a Minister for Justice in recent years in this area. The allegations in relation to abuse have generally been in the area of administration, reception and the question of clarifying the rights of the individual. The worst area is delay and the uncertainty to which that gives rise and we are trying to address that in the Bill.
We have very specific advice from the Attorney General in relation to the use of this phrase. It was used in the 1994 Bill and did not give rise to difficulties on the part of Members on Committee Stage of that Bill. I examined all the submissions and statements which were made then very carefully when drawing up the revised Bill, which incorporates the work originally done by Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn when she was Minister for Justice plus the observations made on Committee Stage and by various organisations in relation to this matter.
This and future Governments will have to come to terms with a certain reality. This is an important issue and a microcosm of something which happened with the Solicitors (Amendment) Bill. Either these committees are set up so that Members can genuinely contribute to the legislation process, or Ministers will feel that because their parties have inbuilt majority all they can say is that they want to proceed as they have already proposed and they do not have to listen to the committee because of what the Attorney General has or has not told them. The committees should make a genuine contribution to the legislative process and Ministers take what Members say seriously, or shut up shop and not maintain a facade.
I listened to the Minister with great interest but I do not accept it. It is much more convenient for this or any other Minister — or any Government — to have a major public policy exception built into this Bill but I do not accept the need for it. People may feel more comfortable about it. I am not hugely impressed by the fact that the previous Bill produced by Fianna Fáil had a similar provision. That Bill was so full of difficulties and problems it had to be taken out of circulation and revamped, as the Minister knows.
I am not satisfied that the use of the phrase "public policy" resolves the problems. I interpret the convention as referring to public order. I see nothing wrong with the idea of excluding someone who poses a risk to the security of the State's citizens, as opposed to a commercial downside. The United Nations convention which we are now seeking to implement in statutory form regards the human rights of the individual as taking precedence over vested interests of the State, other than protecting public order within the State. I was very interested to hear the Minister of State trying to turn what I said on its head. She asked whether someone from Hamas coming here would be granted political asylum.
I assumed that they had already been granted that.
If a representative of a violent organisation — in the Middle East, Europe or elsewhere — which has caused deaths, engaged in acts contrary to United Nations principles or has committed a crime against peace or humanity or a war crime seeks asylum here, the convention and its legislation expressly prevents them from being given political asylum. Regardless of the side of the spectrum from which they come, we have a right to keep people guilty of violence and crimes against humanity out of this country, as we have a right to exclude those who genuinely pose a risk to public order in the sense that they will actively seek to undermine the rule of law. However, we do not have a right under this convention — no matter how the Minister puts it — to provide a broad public policy discretion to be used to prevent granting political asylum to those whose lives and safety are at risk, who have a genuine case for political asylum and genuinely fall within the definition of a political refugee contained in the legislation.
The Minister of State has not listened to us and has simply told us that this is the view of the Department, that it took this view of the previous Bill and that the Attorney General agrees with it. So far, the Members of this select committee do not agree with it. This is a serious issue. It is not about playing party politics or whose phraseology is right but about getting the legislation right. The broad brush of "public policy" instead of the narrow definition of "public order" as defined by the Minister — and I have no objection to that being the basis is the way in which we should be going. We should take some time to tease out this issue. I take this very seriously and it is an area in which I have had an interest for many years.
I accept what the Minister said about Departmental officials thinking that there are no problems in the way they administer their system at the moment and that nothing has happened in recent years to lead us to believe us that anything might go wrong with the legislation. However, the statistics indicate that a great deal is wrong. I do not understand how we have had almost 1,000 applications for political asylum but have only granted 16.
There is something seriously wrong in this regard and with the way in which the Department deals with other issues such as citizenship applications. The latter are not catered for under this Bill. We should deal with this matter now. I have no interest in this Bill becoming law and leaving behind a broad discretion which the Oireachtas cannot supervise. The Bill should be amended. In each instance where the words "public policy" appear, they should be replaced by the term "public order".
It is immaterial if that comes about by way of the amendments tabled by Deputies O'Donoghue and O'Donnell or whether the Minister makes an amendment now or on Report Stage. I am not happy to let this section pass. It is not the most important one. This issue is more important in relation to sections 16 and 17 than it is to section 4, but the amendments are being discussed together. It is good that this has arisen in connection with section 4 because the Minister might have an opportunity to consider the matter further. It is clear that we will not deal with sections 16 and 17 today and the Government will have to reconsider this issue. The Bill must be amended to deal with the reservations articulated by Members.
As far as this committee is concerned, there is no difficulty teasing out the various consequences or minutiae of any wording. I was anxious that we spend a considerable amount of time discussing this key issue which has arisen so early in our deliberations. The message to the Minister, as far as Members are concerned, is that there is a considerable distinction between "public policy" and "public order". In many ways that is a key to the working of this legislation.
I agree with a great part of Members contributions to date. If asked, any practising Deputy will not be aware of the criteria or grounds on which decisions are made. If the figures provided by Deputy Shatter are correct, a vast number of people are not granted applications and Members would not be aware of the reasons.
In discussing public policy or the public good, who is supposed to know and determine what is the public good? Surely the Members of the Oireachtas must have some knowledge and understanding of where the public good lies. We, in the Oireachtas, often attempt to discover its nature, but it can be elusive. There is no point in having a committee system unless we are prepared to consider issues afresh in the light of experience, developments and the progress of society. In the latter context we can discuss openness and accountability, for example. This issue is one of openness and accountability. If the Bill remains as drafted, the question of public policy will be the basis for decision. We must then inquire who determines public policy on a daily, not a long-term, basis.
On a long-term basis, public policy will probably be determined with the involvement of the Oireachtas. However, we are concerned with who makes decisions on a daily basis. In effect, this section states that the Minister is responsible for doing so. In practice, this would probably mean that the Minister's officials will make such decisions. That is fine, once we understand the limits and criteria which apply. The difficulty we now face is that the terms "public policy" and "public good" are too open. There is too much information involved which we cannot obtain or understand. If we could do so, the Minister could delegate responsibility for decisions without question, reservation or concern about what is happening to people's rights under the legislation. The definition must be reconsidered.
I support the amendments tabled by Deputies O'Donoghue and O'Donnell, which are quite similar. I also support the proposed change in the wording to include "for compelling reasons of national security or public order". It is too far reaching to go beyond this and approach the question of a full, open public policy or the public good. The Minister should return with new wording which will precisely determine how far beyond public order one needs to go. If one needs to go beyond public order, how will people be aware of what is taking place?
Deputies are very busy with their work and must accept certain things. They beat their heads against stone walls at times, discovering that it is easier to get on with the job and maintain the status quo. However, this committee has the opportunity to reconsider that issue and determine what we believe the position should be. I greatly respect the advice provided by the Attorney General, who can be wise regarding many issues. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the solution proposed meets the public good as we perceive it and as people would express it to us.
I support the amendment and appeal to the Minister to reconsider the position for Report Stage. In that respect, I support the eloquent contributions made by Deputies O'Donoghue, O'Donnell and Shatter.
It might help if Members placed their cards on the table at the outset. In saying this, I am aware that the Minister has articulated and, I hope, still agrees such sentiments. Deep concern and scepticism exist about the way in which the Department of Justice has operated the rules in relation to people who are not citizens of this country — be they refugees or those seeking asylum, citizenship or to reside in this country. I share such concerns. There is a great difficulty in this regard because the Department, as a matter of policy, does not inform people why their applications have been refused. Therefore, we are, to some extent, working in the dark and are more cynical and sceptical than we should be. We are working out of an ignorance created by public policy. Heretofore, public policy has been to keep people in the dark and not offer reasons for refusing applications.
Personally I had the experience — as, I am sure, other Members have — of being informed by an official of the Department that he could not speak to me because others were within earshot. I was told that it might be possible to provide me with a reason at a later stage, informally, on condition that I did not disclose it to someone else. This approach is simply not good enough. The Minister will understand that we must start from a position of scepticism about the way in which the Department has carried out its affairs on previous occasions.
I am not particularly wed to any set of amendments. However, I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to them and, perhaps, reconsider the very definitions she provided. The definitions of public order and public policy which she articulated are very good. To offer phrases such as "the good of the community" as being sufficient reason to allow ministerial discretion is, in my opinion, far too broad. It gives a discretion to the Minister which I, personally, would not like to give. I do not wish to say anything in relation to the committee and its deliberations. However, I request that the Minister reconsider this issue before Report Stage and, perhaps, return with a different wording.
Not one person has spoken in favour of the Minister's text with regard to this issue. There is widespread, overwhelming support in this committee for a change as submitted by the amendments. How does the Minister square the use of the words "national security or public order" which is the definition we require? When Articles 28 and 32 of the Convention, which is attached to the Bill, use the term they translate it as "national security or public order" in all cases. It would appear there is a conflict in the translation even immediately following the Bill where we say there is this defective translation of "ordre publique” in the appended schedule, which is the Convention. The Convention itself uses the words “national security or public order”. It says: “The contracting states shall issue to refugees lawfully staying in their territory travel documents for the purpose of travel outside their territory unless compelling reasons of national security or public order otherwise require.”
The Minister has not squared that inconsistency between the appended Convention and the Bill.
When you are talking about public order are you really talking about public safety?
Yes.
There is a huge gap between public safety and public policy.
Absolutely. Public policy is a moveable feast.
I thought I would have to appeal to justice to get in here. In view of all that has been said, and as a person who hates repetition, I will be as brief as I can. It is as clear as daylight that there is a major difference between public order and public policy. Despite the fact that the Minister is caught to a certain extent by the advice she received, I join others in asking her to again look at this. Obviously, it is a very serious matter. One could give as many examples as have already been given to show that public policy does not stand up and I ask the Minister to look at this again for Report Stage. That will give her an opportunity of discussing it again, bearing in mind all that has been said. It has been the clearest debate that I have heard in the House for many years.
I ask the Minister of State to reconsider this matter. Apart from her, there seems to be unanimity that we have got a problem in relation to the phrase "public policy". While everybody wants to see the common good protected, we should not lose sight of the fact that very often the common good is not the equivalent of public policy here or elsewhere. If that were the case it would be Utopia and we would not need to implement legislation.
In the hierarchy of obligations for any government the protection of human life is superior irrespective of an individual human being's citizenship or where they come from. In that context I ask the Minister to reconsider this and come back to us on Report Stage.
Much space is given in this Bill to define a refugee and to make it clear for everybody to understand. By using the two words "public policy" we are putting something into the Bill that provides a broad area for sweeping interpretations as to what category of refugee we decide to take in. That is the basis of the problem. The intention of the Bill is to be absolutely clear about what a refugee is and what the procedures should be for dealing with them. However, these two words turn the whole thing upside down by defining categories of refugees according to public policy at the time. Will the Minister, therefore, use whatever resources are available to interpret those words correctly, or to insert a better phrase that will convey the meaning? Maybe there are intentions that need to be expressed in a better way.
The consensus is that this will not do the Bill any good. In fact, it will make it much more difficult to operate and, in the long run, make refugees sceptical about the type of treatment they may receive when they arrive here.
There is a clear message from the committee, representative of all parties in the House, that we have a problem as far as the wording of this section is concerned.
I can again speak to the Attorney General specifically about the legal advice which was given on the definition of the term "public order". While we have clear legal advice, I am happy to again consult on it.
I am aware of the great inadequacy there has been in dealing with refugees and asylum seekers.
One of the reasons I pursued the introduction of this Bill, and taken on board the work done by the previous Government and the previous committee, is because I am so concerned. My honest opinion is that the area of delay is the greatest defect affecting asylum seekers. One of the reasons for the delay is that, in the absence of an Act, we have a cumbersome system involving at least three separate consultation and examination mechanisms.
I do not know if Deputy Shatter was implying that somehow I, or the Department of Justice, were indifferent to the position of refugees. The Programme for Government, negotiated by this Government and its predecessor, specifically referred to dealing with that area of legislation, and all parties in this House generally acknowledge that this area needs to be addressed.
The figures mentioned demonstrate the problems concerning delays. Quite a number of those applications were withdrawn but I would like to give Members more recent figures. In the last two calendar years we had 779 applications, so, most of the applications spoken of have been made within the last two years. Of those, some 705 are outstanding. In the current month of January we have already received 93 applications. We are concerned about the delays which is one of the reasons we want to get this legislation passed.
I ask Deputy Shatter to accept that I have as great a concern as he and many other Members about the inadequacies which have existed up to now. In recent years, however, for the most part, departmental officials and immigration officers have dealt with asylum seekers on a very fair and compassionate basis. I would not like an alternative impression to go out from this House.
I am not aware of any case concerning general applications for refugee status in this country — we are not talking about travel documents because there has not been such a case with the Department in recent years — where commercial considerations in relation to Irish contracts were applied. If the Deputy knows of such a case perhaps he would advise me.
We have broadened the debate from the specific amendment which is of great importance. The Minister said she will seek the Attorney General's advice. While we are dealing with amendments Nos. 3 and 4, we are actually dealing with 11 amendments. We hope that the Minister will have sought and received the Attorney General's advice by tomorrow because these amendments will be taken accordingly. If Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are to be withdrawn — which I invite Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy O'Donoghue to do — we want an assurance from the Minister that she will come back to us rapidly on this. It is an important aspect of the legislation.
If the Minister is giving a commitment that she will seek the Attorney General's advice I will defer withdrawing my amendment. We could suspend deliberations on these amendments until such time as we have a response from the Attorney General. It will be the end of the matter if the amendment is withdrawn before a commitment is given. We should await the advice of the Attorney General and the Minister's political direction thereafter.
It is possible to withdraw an amendments Nos. 3 and 4 because amendments Nos. 40, 41, 55, 81, 99, 100, 106, 107 and 118 have yet to be taken.
I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment at this point because the definition of the particular words goes to the core of the Bill. This matter is of fundamental importance. In deference to the Minister, I am prepared to adjourn my amendments so the Minister can seek the advice of the Attorney General and others she deems appropriate to approach. I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment at this point.
I am not casting aspersions on the Minister's integrity or concern. I am sure she is fully concerned about this issue and had the best of intentions when she introduced the Bill. However, as legislators, we are entitled to raise issues of concern. I do not wish to repeat the contributions of other members but the point was well made that the history of the manner in which these issues have been dealt with in the Department does not give rise to feelings of comfort regarding the way matters will be handled in the future.
The point is being somewhat missed. Undoubtedly, as with all legislation, the Attorney General gave advice. However, the advice given by him or his office as accurately as possible cannot predict how a concept of public policy in this area will be applied in practice. There may be a discussion as to whether, linguistically, ordre public in France is taken further than our concept of public order or whether it is regarded differently in Brussels. This is legislation is for this State and it will be applied by people who apply their concepts of what it contains. Public order has a particular and narrow application which is appropriate to the Bill.
I do not care greatly if the Attorney General tells us it means something different in France. As all members of the committee stated, if the concept of public policy is included in the Bill, it goes far beyond any narrowing we may wish to apply to it in the context of the way other countries deal with the issue. It is as broad as meaning a public policy exception to the granting of political asylum. Regardless of the goodwill of the Minister, there will be a broad public policy exemption which will allow any future Minister or Government to deny political asylum.
We are legislating for Ireland and that goes beyond the discretion which should be given. It fails to fulfil our obligations under the UN convention and it leaves a problem in the administration of our refugee protection laws which the Minister genuinely seeking to address. In that context, coming back to the committee with the Attorney General's view will not necessarily solve the problem. His view cannot determine in any respect how future Governments will administer the legislation.
The constructive way to perhaps resolve the problem is to replace the concept of public policy with the words "public order" and to include what is meant by public order in the definition section of the legislation. It would be defined in a particular way and its application would be certain and narrow. A broad discretionary brush would not exist. The Minister should consider this point. The words "public order" should be included but they should be defined.
It is a good idea to adjourn discussion of the amendments at this point. This would not just give the Minister the opportunity to talk to the Attorney General but also allow her to consider the political and legislative reservations of Members of the House. Some Members have as much experience in this area of the law as the Attorney General and staff in his office and some of us disagreed with past Attorneys General and the Department of Justice regarding the way they administered this aspect.
A font of wisdom does not exist in those offices. If that were the position, a number of cases would not be before the courts at present in which people seeking asylum, refugee status or citizenship found the need to litigate against the State. Some have done so successfully. If the Attorney General and the Department were always correct, they would never lose a case. That is far from reality in this area.
The Minister said that as far as she is aware everybody is being treated fairly at present. I do not agree. I am aware that proceedings against the Department of Justice are currently before the courts. These were brought by 16 individuals seeking political asylum who want legal aid so they can be legally represented in the processing of an appeal through the current informal appeal system. As their future lives depend on what happens to their applications, they should have legal aid. The Minister stated previously that legal aid, where necessary, will be provided through the appeals system. Those people are not being treated fairly at present. They must litigate through the courts to get legal aid so they can use the current informal appeals system.
Things happening at present leave me with a deep feeling of unease. I presume, as a matter of public policy currently, legal aid is denied to appellants in existing applications. I fundamentally disagree with that public policy. The Minister should consider the broader issues between now and the recommencement of discussion on this issue. It is not simply a matter of whether the Attorney General thinks it is the right or wrong way to proceed. Members of the committee have genuine reservations, some of which perhaps relate to party politics but in the main to the substance of the issue. It is not a case of trying to catch someone out politically, rather of trying to get the legislation correct.
One further point is a mystery and perhaps the Minister will explain it as there must be something behind it which I do not understand. The statistics I have show there were 31 applications in 1991 for political asylum. There were 39 applications in 1992 and 91 applications in 1993. These statistics were provided by the Minister's Department in reply to a parliamentary question. As the Minister said, 355 applications were made in 1994 and 424 applications in 1995. The Minister said 90 applications were made in January.
As these matters are secret at present, it might be useful to the work of the committee if the Minister provided some insight as to reason for the large upsurge in applications in the past three years. Perhaps she could provide some information about the country of origin of the applicants without necessarily revealing their identities or the individual reasons behind each application. As legislators we are entitled to know. Are all the applications from one particular region or country? As it goes to the root of the public policy problem, we are also entitled to know whether some of the applications are not being processed at present.
Perhaps I am incorrect but is there some formal or informal agreement among the member states of the European Union not to process to finality political asylum applications from individuals from certain parts of the world? If that is the case and a public policy exemption is included in the Bill, it will be subject to whatever informal arrangements are reached at EU level to deprive some individuals of the right to political asylum in the future. They should be granted this right pursuant to the UN convention and the type of approach to which we appear, at least on the surface, committed to adopting as contained in section 3 of the Bill.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Chairman mentioned the Minister coming back tomorrow. The difficulty with confining a Minister to rapid reaction is that, first, the Attorney General may not be available and, second, he might give only five minutes to the matter. The points made require calm repeating to the Attorney General or Ministers. I am not sure the Minister’s hands should be tied to that short time as it could be difficult.
It is necessary to get the legislation correct.
I do not mind if we adjourn this for a week or two so the Minister can come back to us on the issue and perhaps furnish a briefing document on the issue to members of the committee. This legislation has taken a long time to process. If another two weeks would allow us satisfactorily to resolve not just this section but a series of further key sections, it would ultimately reduce the amount of time needed on these matters. It is not fair to the Minister to say that she must have an answer to this by tomorrow. Very serious consideration should be given to this issue. It would be worth adjourning for a week or two if we could produce a satisfactory result by doing so.
The Minister said that the words "public policy" were used in Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn's Bill. The Committee Stage of any Bill is the appropriate place to change the minutiae of legislation so it should not be taken that the words would not have been changed if the committee had proceeded at that point. Further, I have read submissions from interested bodies in relation to this area and am now satisfied, as is my party, that the words "public policy" are not appropriate to the Bill.
I agree with Deputy Shatter. While I could not put my reservations about the use of that phrase as eloquently as he did, or in such strong legal terms, to use the word "policy" is, in layman's language, to offer a carte blanche to the Minister of the day to decide public policy for the time being. I heartily endorse members' very strong reservations and we should adjourn until the Minister is able to come back with a definite response, as proposed.
It is proposed that we adjourn for a period of one week. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I wish to answer briefly one point which Deputy Shatter made. Deputy Shatter applied for certain information which he got as a consequence of a parliamentary question. Were he to apply to me for information I would be happy to give it to him. He suggested there was a particular bias in relation to applications and numbers. The top numbers of people applying in 1995 as refugees were 178 Romanians, followed by 47 Algerians and 30 people from Somalia. In the previous year the highest numbers were 239 Cubans, 37 Romanians and 18 Russians. In the year before the highest number was people from the former USSR at 28.
I do not know if the Deputy can detect a pattern, as he implied. I do not detect a particular geographical pattern, certainly in relation to colour. As far as I can make out the highest numbers applying are Caucasian. They are Romanian. In relation to the 93 applications received so far this year, we understand that 44 are Romanian. They have identified themselves as being of Romanian origin. That information is available on application to the Department. I am happy to make it available to the committee and the Deputy. There are obviously areas of national security and elements in the Department of Justice which are not freely disclosed but I have no difficulty in making disclosures to Deputies in this area where they request information. I wish to reassure the Deputy and the members of the committee on that point.
I suggest that the documentation the Minister referred to might be circulated to Deputy Shatter and any other interested parties. I ask the Minister to convey to the Attorney General and indeed anybody else to whom she is speaking in regard to this matter, such as the Minister for Justice and Cabinet Ministers, the very strongly held views of this committee, representative of all parties, on this key aspect of the legislation. We hope that when we return to this issue matters can be resolved in favour of the wishes of the members of this committee. It is an extremely important matter and we are very pleased the Minister has decided to seek the advice of the Attorney General. There should be no difficulty should she need more than a week to complete discussions. If we do not hear from her in the meantime we will meet at 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 February 1996.
I was not here for the private session earlier, but there was an element of correspondence I addressed to the Chairman, which I think was circulated by the secretariat, in which I proposed that we undertake a review of the licensing laws. I would be guided by you as to how you wish to deal with that. Perhaps this is not the most appropriate time to discuss it but I would be interested to do so.
This item is not on the agenda now but for the benefit of members, Deputy McDowell proposed a motion, which was circulated. It is a very good idea, one we should embark upon. If we adopt the motion, the first thing we should do is make arrangements with officials from the Department of Justice, the Vintners Association, the Garda Síochána and RGDATA for a day-long hearing in the early spring on the licensing laws.
I have no difficulty with Deputy McDowell's proposal but in the interests of facilitating our spokesman to have an opportunity to deliberate on it, I request the agreement of the committee that the Whips should have an opportunity to discuss this.
The convenors will meet and report back to Deputy McDowell.
I have already received a reaction from the union; it might be appropriate to invite the union as well. I am sure you did not exclude them, Chairman, but I want to put that on record. Perhaps the Whips will have an opportunity to discuss this in consultation with the spokespersons.
The convenors can meet and discuss this. There is a final matter. Deputy Dukes, chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, and I have been favoured with invitations to attend a conference in London on 22 February. It is an extraordinary meeting of the Western European Assembly. I can assure you that I will adequately represent the views of this committee at that conference and seek your approval for my attendance. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Select Committee adjourned at 4.20 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 February 1996.