Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 28 Jun 1988

Vol. 382 No. 9

Adjournment Debate. - Residency Permits.

Deputy Quinn gave me notice of his intention to raise on the Adjournment the difficulties experienced in respect of seeking residency permits from the Department of Justice.

I thank you for allowing me to raise this matter. It might be a salutary experience for all of us, particularly those who were recently on the high bridge of moral rectitude on the independent ship of the Irish Republic, to come with me in the next 20 minutes into the engine room of our tardy and perhaps not so well run little vessel to see how we treat people of different races and to whom we give the title "aliens". What I have to tell the House is not a happy tale, it is not a pleasant tale and it is not a tale for which the Minister opposite is directly, immediately or exclusively responsible, because the responsibility ultimately has to be shared by the elected representatives of this House.

If the Irish emigrants about whom so much concern has been expressed in this House and outside by so many different people were to be subject to the delays, the indecisions, the evasion, the non-replies, the frustration and the downright degradation that the people we describe as aliens, or non-EC citizens, have to endure under our system of entry into this free and independent Republic, there would be an absolute outrage and uproar.

What is this system of entry into the Irish Republic? In a reply to a question to me on 23 June the Minister, Deputy Collins, stated that non-EC citizens coming to this State from a place outside Great Britain or Northern Ireland must present themselves before an immigration officer for leave to land. The immigration officer may refuse leave to land on a number of grounds which are listed in article 5 of the Aliens Order, 1946, as amended by the Aliens Order, 1975. That Aliens Order, 1975, lists under article 5 a range of reasons a person can be refused entry. The main difficulty would appear to be in relation to a number of people coming from outside the European Community. If, in the opinion of the immigration officer, the person intends to travel, immediately or later, to Great Britain or Northern Ireland and the officer is satisfied that the alien would not qualify for admission to Great Britain or Northern Ireland if he arrived there from a place other than this State, then he is refused entry. That is an amendment of earlier regulations drafted in 1946.

I understand the background to this is the common passport union we have with Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I can appreciate the need to respect the entry requirements and regulations which our neighbour, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, have imposed. Frankly I do not agree with them because I believe in many respects they are racist. Because of that, people wishing to settle in this country have been unfairly discriminated against.

One of the glories of the human race is the great range of skin colour — black, brown, white, yellow — but we are distinguished by our racial features. In this part of the world people coming from Asia are readily recognisable. Unfortunately some people genuinely wishing to settle in this State, who have the means to settle here and do not want to be a burden on the State but who want to make a contribution to this country and think the Republic of Ireland is a place they would like to live in, are denied that right. These people are alienated by the response of and their relationship with the Department of Justice.

I have raised this matter because of the intense frustration I feel about a particular constituent. This case is just the tip of an iceberg and this iceberg has been documented by two separate sources. A person of Indian origin living in Northern Ireland — for legal purposes part of the State of Great Britain but there are many people in this House who would assert it is part of Ireland — was refused a visa to come to this country. I will quote from the letter I received:

I am disappointed at not being allowed to enter into this country despite the fact that I have lived in Northern Ireland for a long time.

A lawyer handed a case over to me after six months trying to get a reply from the Department of Justice. He was told originally he would have a reply within a week. The departmental officials said that the decision as to whether the Department would grant the person in question entry clearance would be made within one week. The solicitor went on to state:

In view of the length of time which has lapsed since we first contacted the Department of Justice on behalf of this person, we were surprised at the attitude adopted by the Department and found their whole approach unsatisfactory. After a long discussion with that person and her brother, we saw that there were two options open to us. The first was to continue writing to the Department of Justice, as we had been doing since November 1986, and the second was to appeal to court for a judicial review of the legislation in question. The first alternative we felt would be a waste of time and the second alternative we felt would be expensive, lengthy and not necessarily successful.

I received another piece of evidence from somebody who works with people who come to this country. He said:

In my experience this case is not exceptional. There seems to be particular difficulties with this section of the Department of Justice. I have found it quite impossible to get any information on what conditions people will be admitted to this country of ours. I have had inquiries from some of our overseas contacts, international church bodies, looking for the information booklet outlining the conditions of entry. If such a booklet exists, it is well hidden. It is as well hidden as the Government's policy on this matter.

We should be honoured that anybody from another State would want to live in this Republic. We should take it as a reflection on our quality of life. Perhaps those people would make a contribution to our overall economy and to the cultural vitality of the State. If in the past we had excluded immigrants — our ancestors — this would be a much poorer place as we know despite our frequently trumpetted reference to this State being of Celtic origin. It is much more than that. Dublin's millennium is a testimony in part to the diversity of the richness of cultural pluralism that make Ireland what it is today.

What we are doing now is to arbitrarily guillotine that constant enriching process, and in many cases it is happening without an adequate explanation being given to the people who wish to enter our State. Of course, the Minister for Justice and his officials have to have some kind of regulatory system for people coming into the State, I am not challenging that. Of course, there must be conditions under which entry is allowed. Nobody is challenging that, but people should get a clear and unequivocal answer, in a civil and comforting manner, without the most extraordinary Kafkaesue type of delays, evasions and frustrations. That is the experience of people who have to sit in the waiting room in the Department of Justice. Last Wednesday I saw one man going to the reception desk in total frustration, saying he had been waiting for hours and asking when he would see somebody.

Every week we hear about the plight of the poor Irish in London, the difficulties of illegals in New York and the problems of Irish people in Australia. If we can relate to that sense of alienation and distress, which I encountered in my own time, why can we not relate to that feeling among people who are aliens here?

I have deliberately dealt with this matter on a general basis. While there is a particular case with which the Minister will be familiar, I do not necessarily want to win that case at the expense of not changing the system. The exposition I have made is just the tip of the iceberg. I have an entire solicitor's file containing about 40 letters which cite a horror story of alienation that would make Franz Kafka proud.

I am appealing to the Minister to change the lousy, rotten system which faces people trying to get information about whether they can stay in our free Republic. Some minutes ago we heard Deputy Kitt and Deputy Andrews talk about the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela. There are people imprisoned in a bureaucratic cell of indecision in this island, not knowing whether they can come or go, not knowing whether, if they leave the country on a holiday, they will be allowed back. Is that what Republican justice is about? Is that what the independence adventure since 1916 has been about? I put it to the House that it is not and that the Minister is perhaps not even aware of the extent of this problem.

Effectively there are only four or five people working in that section. In one response to a particular individual, a civil servant, whom I will not name in deference to the traditions of anonimity that prevail in this House, simply indicated that he was inundated with applications and could not give a reply any sooner.

We need a clear system and a handbook available in every Irish Embassy which will enable people to find out precisely what is required of them. In the case of planning permission, if a reply is not forthcoming within a given period, the applicant is deemed to have been given permission. This system has worked spectacularly and I suggest that a similar system should be introduced in relation to this matter. We also need a system of appeal so that somebody who is refused permission can assert his claim to enter the Republic of Ireland and refute any claim that he is using this country as a back door to the United Kingdom. I implore the Minister to change the fundamentally arbitrary nature of the system.

I have replied to a number of parliamentary questions in relation to the aliens section of my Department over the last six or seven months. In November last, in reply to Deputies Quinn and O'Sullivan, I set out the staffing structure of the section. I also said on that occasion that I was satisfied that the operations of the section were both just and efficient within the resource constraints applicable to the public service generally. I went on to say that the work procedures of the section were being studied with a view to determining the proper staffing structures of the section.

Last Thursday I replied to a question from Deputy Quinn on the present arrangements and operations of the aliens section. I again dealt with the staffing situation and said that the study of the section had been completed and that it was under examination in my Department. I referred to computerisation in the context of that study and said that I had already given approval to a recommendation for an extension of computerisation of the work of the aliens section and that I hoped that as a result there would be a general improvement.

I am quite satisfied that there will be. Work has already started in this area.

Last Thursday in the course of supplementary questions, Deputy Quinn asked if the Minister would agree that the outline of information which I had put on the record of the House in answer to a parliamentary question with its reference to the three sets of regulations was readily available to anybody going to the Department. I was asked to consider a proposal to publish in a succinct and concise form the requirements with which people need to comply in order to obtain a residence permit if they are EC nationals or non-nationals. I replied by saying I understood the point made by Deputy Quinn and that the importance of making such information available would have to be taken into consideration. I said I was prepared to give his suggestion every consideration with a view to implementing it. That I propose to do.

Perhaps it would be useful if I gave some statistical background to the work of the section. The most important statistic as regards the work of the section is the number of aliens registered in the State. The number of those registered in 1987 was 22,594. The number registered in 1981 was 16,966. Accordingly, there has been an increase of 33 per cent since 1981. Other important statistics in relation to the section are those relating to visa applications and naturalisation. The number of visa applications in 1981 was 6,292. In 1987 this grew to 11,472 or an increase of 82 per cent. In 1981 147 aliens were naturalised. In 1987 the figure was 529. These figures give an indication of the growth in the volume of work in some of the areas dealt with by the section. The volume of work in other areas has also grown and, in addition, there has been an increase in the complexity of the work in some areas. Developments in European Community policy in relation to immigration from countries outside the Community and applications for political asylum are two areas in which there has been a growth in the complexity and, indeed, sensitivity of the work of the section.

As I said in reply to questions last November, it is possible that individual applicants could have their applications for permission to stay here processed earlier if additional staff were available. However, as I also said on that occasion, I am satisfied that the operations of the aliens section are both just and efficient within the resource constraints applicable to the public service generally.

The Deputy made particular reference to the case of one British lady. I presume he received a copy of the letter I sent to him on Friday last.

Sad to relate, I did.

I know the Deputy is aware that I received a lot of information in this case. I evaluated it carefully before reaching my decision. Part of the information supplied to me was to the effect that the lady in question is a Briitish citizen and that an application was made to the British authorities for permission for her husband, an Indian citizen, to enter the United Kingdom. That permission was refused by the British authorities and that refusal, again according to the information available to me, was upheld on appeal.

I gave careful consideration to this case before deciding not to give the lady's husband permission to enter the State or to reside here, and a crucial point in the case, in my view, is that the lady is a British citizen and that the original permission for her husband to come to an EC country was sought from the British authorities. As she was and is a British citizen they were the correct authority to consider permission for residency. That was the case some years ago and, in my view, is still the case. As the Deputy has been told in a letter written last Friday I gave very careful consideration to all the information available to me on this case and I am not prepared to change my decision on the matter.

Having regard to the very heavy growth in the work of this section, I am taking corrective action with a view to making it more efficient. It was not today or yesterday that the aliens section of the Department of Justice was criticised for the first time but, in fairness, it was the first time something positive and definite has been done about it. I would like to see it being more efficient and perhaps with more staff it could be more efficient.

I take the point that Deputy Quinn made last week when we discussed this matter, that people who are making inquiries about their position should be told as quickly as possible what the regulations are and what they need to do to comply with these regulations. Something we should not forget is that those who are coming in here legally have certain restrictions stamped on their passports at particular times, so they know that there are certain restrictions on their movements as to what they must or must not do and if they do not comply with those restrictions they are breaking the law and are liable to be asked to leave immediately. Of course, as the House knows well, many people come in here illegally. They surface from time to time and it is a very difficult problem. If I were asked, as of now, how many persons were here illegally, I could only guess at it. The same would apply to my predecessor and his predecessor, both of whom served in Government with Deputy Quinn. It is because of the situation that exists that we want to streamline it in an effort to point out to people exactly what is expected of them if they want to stay.

I should also say that I am satisfied that there are groups of people or organisations operating to get people into this country illegally or any way they possible can. We have had difficulties in this area where organisations are working for big money on behalf of people who find themselves in this country not knowing what their future will be. Having regard to our situation in Europe from 1992 it is important to put our House in order to deal with the situation from then because access to any one country within the common market will mean access to any one of the others. There is a lot of work to be done and we are tackling it. I am not pointing the finger at anybody because I was there myself in the late seventies.

The Minister signed the regulations.

I know, but I only wish that at the time I had signed an order for a direction to have the whole place computerised because it would make life much easier for everybody in this day and age when we still have to depend on the old system of bookkeeping to try to keep a record of people moving in and out of the country.

Finally, I take no pleasure whatsoever in refusing an application for anything. It is because I had more than satisfied myself that there was not any other option for me to take that, with very great regret, I had to make that decision.

Let me ask one question. If the Government, in the incidence of the Birmingham Six, are prepared to challenge the possibility that British justice might have been mistaken, in respect of Mr. Singh's application, might it not also have been mistaken?

I am not sure what the answer to that question is. One cannot be related to the other.

It is the same process.

Speaking for myself, it is I who had the responsibility to make the decision in this instance and I satisfied myself as best I could as to the facts, and on those facts I made my decision. There is an appeal to the courts if that course is to be taken.

Top
Share