I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Private Members' Business. - Asylum Seekers (Regularisation of Status) (No. 2) Bill, 1998: Second Stage.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Gormley and Joe Higgins.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank the Fine Gael Party for facilitating this debate. It is unusual, indeed it may even be unprecedented, for one political party to provide Private Members' time to another. We, in Democratic Left, acknowledge this act of generosity. It is the kind of generosity that is badly needed in regard to the treatment of refugees in Ireland. Such generosity is sorely lacking in this Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government. I also thank the Labour Party for their co-operation and support.
This evening we are debating the issue of asylum seekers in the run-up to our national holiday. This is the time of year when Ministers fly out to attend St. Patrick's Day celebrations in Canada, the United States, Australia, South Africa and across the globe. As a Government spokesperson explained last week: it is our national day throughout the world and it has huge value in promoting this country. It puts Ireland into focus for inward investment and as a tourism destination.
St. Patrick's Day as a marketing tool, this is today's pragmatism. It fits well with our view of ourselves as a modern State and a capable, prosperous and outward looking people. Conveniently, we choose to ignore a salient fact. For this global celebration of Irishness, this focus for investment, this tourism opportunity, we have to thank the generations of Irish asylum-seekers who were driven out to seek refuge among strangers. They were often poor, hungry, sick and homeless people. Sometimes they died in flight, sometimes they were political outcasts and convicted criminals. They were the kind of undesirables that the Ireland of IDA promotions likes to disavow. I refuse to accept that our past has no bearing on this debate. Our history requires us to be generous and just. This Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform's approach to asylum-seekers has been hopelessly inadequate on both counts.
Let us consider the facts as opposed to the modern myths that are prevalent and which have fuelled fear and friction. Ninety per cent of all refugees do not move outside of the developing world. Only a small percentage of the total number come to Europe and only a tiny fraction of those make it as far as Ireland. In 1996 and 1997, Ireland came fifth from the bottom of the league among the EU countries in regard to asylum applications. The myth of Ireland being swamped by refugees is just that, a myth. However, it is one which has engendered revulsion and hatred and one which has been used in inflammatory terms by at least one Fianna Fáil Member of this House.
I calculate that 4,548 people sought asylum from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform up to January 1 last. Some of those asylum seekers may even have left Ireland since applying for asylum. To put this figure into context, let us compare it to the scale of Irish emigration. It is estimated that, at present, 7O million people throughout the world can claim Irish descent. There are so many people of Irish descent that former President Mary Robinson paid great attention to the many Irish abroad, both living and dead, during her term of office. On 2 January 1995, in her address to this House, she described her visit to Grosse Ile in Canada:
I arrived in heavy rain and as I looked at the mounds which, together with small white crosses, are all that mark the mass graves of the 5,000 or more Irish people who died there, I was struck by the sheer power of commemoration. I was also aware that, even across time and distance, tragedy must be seen as human and not historic and that to think of it in national terms alone can obscure that fact. As I stood looking at Irish graves I was also listening to the story of the French-Canadian families who braved fever and shared their food, who took the Irish into their homes and into their heritage.
There are more Irish emigrants buried in that little plot of land in eastern Canada than there are asylum seekers in the whole of Ireland today. We need to ask ourselves what stories the descendants of the displaced Africans and Eastern Europeans will be able to tell? What will the record show about the children, women and men who, in desperation, sought refuge in Ireland? Will it be one of the kindness and acceptance of Irish people or will their story be one of rejection and of unjust deportation by the State? The vast majority of these asylum-seekers have escaped persecution and repression. They have come here not out of choice but out of necessity and they do not view Ireland as a "soft option". In most cases, they view Ireland as their only option for survival.
In 1994, the UNHCR described what it was like to be a refugee: "Often everything that was familiar is lost — home, livelihood, school, friends, cultural traditions, language". Can we even begin to imagine how we might survive in those circumstances and then imagine what it is like to be fleeing from repression and, at times, from torture? Concern has been expressed by Dr. Philip O'Connell of the Refugee Medical Centre in St. James Hospital, Dublin in this regard. He recommended the setting up of a specialised torture treatment centre for Ireland's refugees. His research found that almost half of the refugees in the study he carried out at St. James Hospital had suffered psychological and physical abuse. The trauma caused by torture was particularly evident among those from African countries such as Algeria, Zaire, Angola and Nigeria.
According to the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture in Britain, the form of torture favoured by Algerian security officials is the "chiffon", a practice inherited from the country's colonial past. The stomach is filled to bursting point with contaminated water and then kicked until the victim vomits. Excruciatingly painful, it has the advantage of leaving few marks and can be repeated until the victim passes out. More than half of Algerian refugees seeking asylum in Britain, who were examined by the foundation, have suffered variations of "chiffon".
Of the 43 men who were examined, five said they were raped and ten were abused by a torture known as "sitting on a bottle" in which objects are forcibly pushed through the anus. A further eight described having their genitals put in a desk drawer which was then repeatedly slammed shut. Last month, the consultant physician who examined these men told a British parliamentary group that he had no doubt that "the systematic torture of detainees is commonplace in Algeria". He also reported on psychological torture. Many of those examined said that hearing the screams of others being tortured was worse than being tortured themselves.
This is not the first time the situation of refugees has been debated in the House. In the 1990s, Deputy Alan Shatter introduced a Private Members' Bill which was followed by the Refugee Bill introduced by the Fianna Fáil-Labour coalition. This was followed by the Refugee Bill — now the 1996 Refugee Act — introduced by the rainbow Government.
However, in 1998, the Refugee Act remains largely unimplemented. The estimated 4,000 asylum seekers are to have their fate determined by ill-conceived and crude fast-track procedures. Although the number of asylum seekers is relatively small, this Government has abjectly failed to meet the challenge they present. The official response has been, opportunistically, to use a court case taken on a separate matter as an excuse not to implement the Refugee Act in full.
Through their representatives the Irish people introduced the Refugee Act in 1996, yet the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform — his title belies what he has done — has refused to implement it fully. The Minister has a responsibility to explain by what authority he is thwarting the wishes of the people as expressed through the democratically elected Members of this Parliament.
The court case being taken by Paddy Cooney is a red herring. It could be dealt with, without difficulty, either through readvertisement or a short Bill. Indeed, the Taoiseach in the Dáil last week condemned the practice of Government Departments using an age bar on appointments. The Minister would have no difficulty living up to the Taoiseach's desires but he refuses to do so because it suits him not to do so.
Let us recall the genesis of the Refugee Act. In 1994 the interdepartmental committee on non-Irish nationals, which was chaired by Mr. S. Magner of the Department of Justice, published its report. The report called for "a major change in the existing system whereby all applications are effectively screened by the Department of Justice. The motive behind this recommendation is the essential need to ensure that the public perception of the system is one which is not only fair but which is seen to be impartial". The report continues:
It is believed that a Government Department which has overall responsibility for immigration matters and policy will inspire confidence via the maxim that "justice is seen to be done". The tribunal will be both independent and specialised and will be solely and exclusively responsible for considering applications for refugee status and the making of recommendations on these applications.
The Refugee Act implemented the recommendations of this Government report and was passed with all-party consensus and the support of the media and public opinion. However, on 10 December 1997, the Minister introduced new procedures that fly in the face of the provisions of the Act. They are an affront to the principles of fairness and justice and are so regressive that they constitute a reversion to the situation which gave rise to the need for this Act in the first place.
The procedures have been the subject of trenchant criticism from a range of widely respected organisations dealing with asylum seekers. Amnesty International stated:
The new procedures for dealing with asylum applications as outlined in the letter from Diarmuid Cole assistant secretary of the Dept of Justice, Equality and Law Reform seem to make it apparent that the Department has taken the Act passed by the Oireachtas, selected from it those parts which suit departmental procedures and abandoned the rest. The purpose of this action is to set up "fast-track" procedures for dealing with asylum applications which will be entirely under the control of departmental officials without any independent scrutiny of the decisions they make. In the future those people who are deemed by the Department officials to have "manifestly unfounded" applications will no longer be entitled to appeal these decisions to an independent Appeal Board as laid down in the Refugee Act. These appeals will be decided on by "a person of more senior rank" or in other words by somebody who is almost certain to be another department official. Such appeals are likely to be swiftly dealt with, under criteria which are unclear and in which there is no onus on the relevant officials to properly explain the procedures.
There is nothing in the procedures about adequate training and experience in the application of international refugee law, no mention of the need of refugees for adequate legal assistance and no guarantee that asylum seekers will get adequate access to interpreters. There is little mention of the role of the Minister, even though the Minister in the past always had the important function of protecting those fleeing from persecution in other countries.
Interestingly, the most vociferous support Amnesty International received when the question of "manifestly unfounded" applications was debated in the Dáil was from none other than Deputy O'Donoghue, now Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. On 19 October 1995 he said:
I am sure the Minister will be aware that Amnesty International published a document setting out its objections to certain aspects of the Bill while generally welcoming it. It states that the category of manifestly unfounded applications is open to potential serious abuse and grave injustices. It also states that experience abroad has shown that the use of fast-track procedures save neither time nor money. I totally agree with the observations and criticisms of Amnesty International in that respect.
In 1995, while agreeing that fast-track procedures saved neither time nor money and that there was potential for serious abuse and grave injustices in December 1997, the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, caved into Department officials without a whimper. As a result of fear, he introduced a fast-track procedure which has inherent in it, using his own terminology, "the potential for serious abuse and grave injustices."
I ask the Minister to return to the principle he espoused such a short time ago. I ask him not to travel the road his civil servants have mapped out for him. There is another way — a better and fairer way — which is in line with the sentiments the Minister expressed such a short time ago when he said: "The status of refugees is an issue which should strike a chord with every man, woman and child here who has any grasp of Irish history, our history books being littered with the names and deeds of those driven from our country out of fear of persecution."
What will the historians write about the Minister's tenure? Will the record show that a few short years after Ireland was able to secure a preferential deal from the US Government for its illegal emigrants that Ireland deported asylum seekers into danger and even possible death?
Those who advocate a hard line on immigration should remember that up to 30,000 people still emigrate each year from this country and seek work abroad. As recently as the beginning of this decade, there were an estimated 130,000 illegal Irish emigrants in the United States. Imagine the economic and social difficulties that would have been created for this country if the US Government had adopted the same policy that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform now appears intent on following, that of forcible deportation. What will the record show about how we chose to meet our international obligations? Will it show that we sought generosity for our own from others while we operated crude, secretive, reactionary procedures against those who sought help from us? Will it show that the effect of these measures was to keep the number of refugees for whom we had to take responsibility to the minimum while still complying with the letter of international conventions? Will it show that we were, in effect, hypocrites?
Democratic Left proposes an alternative route. We do not pretend that the Asylum Seekers (Regularisation of Status) (No. 2) Bill is a panacea. The full implementation of the Refugee Act is clearly the best way to deal with asylum seekers fairly. However, the Government has resolutely refused to implement the Act and, in the absence of a fair, independent and transparent system, steps must be taken to ensure that asylum seekers currently in Ireland are not consigned to an open-ended legal limbo. That is the aim of the Bill.
Under its provisions, those who had arrived in the State prior to 1 January 1998 and who applied for asylum prior to that date will be allowed to remain in the State as "admitted asylum seekers" and would be entitled to all the rights and privileges of a refugee, as defined in the 1996 Act. Persons who would not have been entitled to apply for refugee status under the 1996 Act are excluded from the provisions of the Bill.
In drafting the Bill, we adhered as closely as possible to the terms and intention of the Refugee Act, which should form the basis of any refugee related measure.
This Bill, if implemented, will provide the Government with a clean slate in facilitating full implementation of the Act. It will also enable asylum seekers to integrate fully into the communities in which they live, and have lived, some of them for years. Contrary to the mythology that has developed around this issue, the vast majority of asylum seekers do not want to be beholden to the State. They want to work and contribute. Many of them possess qualifications which would enable them to make a significant contribution to our economy.
At present the 4,000 or so people whose cases are pending — and whose status would be regularised under this Bill — are denied certain basic civil rights. They are denied the right to work, learn and travel, rights which the rest of us take for granted and which are fundamental in a civilised society. Some of these people have lived here for years. Ireland is home for them and their children and it is where their future lies.
The vast majority of illegal Irish immigrants in the United States were allowed regularise their position. Many settled in the US and others returned here when the economy improved. Could we not show to asylum seekers the same sort of humane approach that was urged on the United States by successive Irish Governments?
Our Bill provides a simple procedure to wipe the slate clean and to regularise not just the status of our asylum seekers but also the status of our refugee legislation. There is widespread political recognition that forced deportations are an intolerable option. The Fine Gael and Labour Parties have already demonstrated support for an amnesty as set out in this Bill. The Tánaiste, Deputy Harney, said the Government is open to the idea.
On 10 December 1997, her colleague Deputy O'Malley spoke about his anguish at seeing asylum seekers being forcibly put back on a plane at Shannon from which they had escaped. He said:
Some of those people unquestionably went to their deaths after they were put back on the plane. That is something of which this country should be ashamed. It is something that we should remember now when we look at the increased but still tiny number of people who want to come to this country and who are not welcome.
This is an opportunity for the Progressive Democrats to absolve Ireland of that shame. The Tánaiste has said many times that she leads a separate party independent of Fianna Fáil. Sometimes she may have thought she led the political conscience of this House. I ask her to use that independence to ensure the passage of this measure which is in line with her own party's thinking and, I believe, in line with her own personal thinking. If the Progressive Democrats duck this issue the shame will not disappear for its Members sitting at Cabinet.
This is a political issue which must be given political direction. I note that today's Irish Independent stated that the interdepartmental committee has recommended against accepting this Bill. Knowing the civil servant mindset, I would be amazed had the committee done anything else. However, the Cabinet response in capitulating to this mindset is a different matter. It reveals a spinelessness and fearfulness that does no credit to either this Government or this country.
If the newspaper reports are correct I challenge both the premise and the figures upon which this decision is made. Attempts have been made to exaggerate the number of applicants for refugee status. According to the Minister's figures given in reply to a Dáil question on 10 February, the total number of applications from the beginning of 1992 to the end of 1997 was 5,978. However, in the same period, 1,430 applications were withdrawn, leaving a net figure of 4,548 people to whom the terms of this Bill would apply.
Some of the inflated figures appear to have come from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. According to The Irish Times of 17 January, a senior official of the Department speaking at a conference organised by the Irish Centre for European Law said there were under 2,000 asylum seekers in 1996. However, the Minister's reply of 10 February shows that the net figure was under 2,000 and was just 807.
This Government has a choice. It can choose the option I am presenting to them — to clear the backlog and implement the Refugee Act. Backlogs of this type are not unusual in other European countries. Greece, Portugal, Switzerland and the Netherlands have had similar experience. An amnesty was not granted in the Netherlands, but resources were expended to process claims fairly. If an amnesty is not granted, considerable resources will be required. The Cabinet cannot reject an amnesty without facing up to a serious obligation to invest those resources heavily in this area.
I understand that even with the additional staff employed to operate the crude fast track system established by the Minister, resources are inadequate. The Minister cannot wriggle off the hook by pretending the system is either fair or effective and that resources are not an issue. He argued against an amnesty on the grounds that families may seek asylum. This is inconsistent for a Minister who is a great proponent of family values. Protection of the family in this context is clearly undesirable.
Family reunification is not new to us. In the Refugee Agency's annual report of 1996 it is clearly shown that family reunification for Vietnamese refugees was managed and is operating well. This shows the numbers are not necessarily five times greater than the number eligible for amnesty. In fact, approximately one in five of the Vietnamese refugees emigrated out of Ireland.
These are serious considerations which I am not belittling. However, they should not cloud the issue. Our system is not working and we need to deal with that and the injustice inherent in it. In The Irish Times, I read with growing disbelief a statement made by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell last weekend. She said Government policy required that visitors be treated with courtesy, efficiency and fairness. She spoke about the promotion of a generous and positive welcome for the refugee community. I have the highest regard for the Minister of State. However, she has lost the run of herself if she thinks Government policy and practice is in anything other than a state of total shambles.
Speaking at the same conference, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, told it as it is. She argued trenchantly for a new approach to recognise that our new found posterity brought with it new obligations and responsibilities. She asked that there be a speedy and fair resolution of the plight of asylum seekers stuck in a logjam which mirrors a logjam in their lives. She sought administrative changes, but more importantly "an attitude of mind that we are in enriched in Ireland by those who come from other countries".
We have a choice. It can be based on fear, retrenchment and political cowardice or we can make a choice which reflects our strength, confidence and the desire of many, particularly our young people, to welcome diversity. This is not a choice to be made on the recommendations of an interdepartmental committee. It is a choice based on how we see ourselves as a modern people belonging in a European community with all the advantages and responsibilities that entails.
Hear, hear.
We are proud to live in a Republic and claim the republican principles of liberty, equality and solidarity. In 1798 Irish republicans recognised that those principles were universal and not limited to national boundaries.
Hear, hear.
They did not, in Mary Robinson's words, think in national terms alone. Two hundred years later, I ask the Minister to make the right decision and accept this Bill.
(Dublin West): I wish to share my time with Deputy Gormley. As a member of the Socialist Party, I commend Democratic Left on bringing forward this Bill which is a human response to the extreme difficulties and suffering being endured by thousands of refugees. This suffering could be ended overnight by a simple decision by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Those who have applied for refugee status have been subjected to the most shameful treatment by officials. Responsibility for this shameful treatment lies with the political leadership and bureaucratic apparatus of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
What kind of justice can refugees expect when the Minister of State at the Department stated before Christmas and the Minister repeated that a decision had already been made on the 4,000-5,000 applicants, that 10 per cent were genuine refugees and 90 per cent were so-called illegal immigrants. What justice can those people hope for when it seems the Minister has already made up his mind on the matter? In the past two weeks eight applicants have been deported against their will. They were kicked out by order of the Minister as so-called illegal immigrants. This is a stain on our society and State and the Minister and his colleagues in Government should be ashamed of themselves.
Deputy McManus referred to the admission by Deputy O'Malley. If, as he said, people were bundled on to planes while they begged for mercy and sent to their death then the matter should be investigated. If this is found to be true then those responsible politically and bureaucratically should be called to account.
The history of our nation cries out for a human response to the few thousand people seeking refugee status. During times of catastrophe our people sought and found refuge abroad. What extra suffering would they have been subjected to if they had not been given shelter abroad? During the 1980s when tens of thousands of illegal young Irish people were on the streets of New York, Chicago and Boston, politicians, including members of Fianna Fáil, crossed the Atlantic every month and pleaded on bended knee with the US Administration to make them legal, to give them an amnesty. They were correct to do so and thankfully an amnesty was given to many of these young people. Yet this party in Government now denies the same human compassion to a few thousand people who ask of this State much less than our nation asked of many other nations.
Politicians and sections of the media have lined up to abuse and castigate refugees. Poverty and homelessness are being blamed on refugee applicants. Poverty existed before refugees came here and if 5,000 refugees were put on 747s tomorrow it would still be here as long as the system of capitalism and market remained. Homelessness is the subject of obscene profiteering in the housing market by builders, developers, profiteers and rezoners, not refugee applicants. The old faithful word "sponger" has been thrown out on a number of occasions. Refugee applicants are not allowed to work. It is like blaming someone for being hungry when we refuse to feed them. Most refugees want to work and, regardless of whether they have tremendous or little talent, they should be allowed to do so.
The number of refugee applicants is much less than the number of first generation Irish people living in many small cities in Britain. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Irish people occupy local authority housing and draw the dole in Britain. If a movement developed in Britain to deport these people what would the public say and the State do?
I hope we will get a generous response from the Minister. To do this he will have to break free from the bureaucratic stranglehold and conservative and right wing advice he is being given by his advisers, particularly those in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I hope he will do this. I have direct experience of the bureaucratic apparatus in the Department. When I was a councillor I made representations to the aliens office on behalf of people who sought my assistance. Even though I speak English, I was frustrated and confused by the number of offices to which I was sent. How do refugees who are bewildered and do not know the language feel?
I commend the excellent work done by the voluntary refugee agencies, particularly the Irish Refugee Council. These agencies have shamefully been left to carry the can for Government inaction. Even at this stage they should be given a much greater injection of funds. I beg the Minister to accept the Bill, to show generosity and to allow people under much duress to find a new life here and to end their suffering.
I thank Deputy Higgins for sharing his time with me. I have outlined my party's position on this matter on many occasions. Some weeks ago we had a debate on the matter following foolish, racist remarks by a Deputy on the other side of the House. Recently in reply to a question raised by a Fine Gael Deputy, the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, implied that homelessness was caused by the huge influx of refugees. This is the sort of foolish remark which incites hatred. At our advice centres people ask why they cannot get accommodation when refugees get it. We must be very careful about the language we use.
I compliment Democratic Left on introducing the Bill which will be welcomed by many people. However, I have a quibble with the use of the word "amnesty" which we associate with those who have committed a crime. Most, if not all, refugees have not committed crimes, even if they have been accused of such in their own countries and we must immediately stop using this term. I am worried that this will be regarded as a measure to deal with the entire problem. However, as Deputy McManus said this is not the case.
I strongly support the Bill. The existing procedures are painfully inadequate and are putting people, almost all of whom have valid reasons for seeking asylum, under undue stress. Even if the Bill is implemented, which seems unlikely given the Government's hamfisted attempt to deal with the issue, it must be regarded as a partial response to the refugee problem. The proper response can only be the full implementation of the Refugee Act. However, the willingness of the Government to take the necessary action will always be in question.
Some refugee applicants have been waiting for up to three years to have their status regularised. During this time they cannot work. We must deal with this matter. On the current backlog, we must put in place practices and procedures which will avoid prolonging this problem. We must look at this matter in great detail. The Green Party supports the right of asylum seekers to seek asylum in accordance with international law.
I would like to finish by citing an anecdote. I met recently with a delegation from Algeria. One of the individuals whom I met was in genuine fear of his life and he could not sleep at night. That was the situation this gentleman found himself in. When he departed I felt for him on a human level because he simply did not know what was going to happen. The Minister should think about this issue on a human level. Let us not think about bureaucracy, but about human beings. If they are deported, some of these people could be sent to their death. I am not exaggerating.
I compliment Deputy McManus on producing this Private Members' Bill. I know from my own experience in Opposition how difficult this can be and how much work is involved.
By now, I am well used to beguiling attempts to misrepresent my position. I have no reason whatsoever to change even one iota of what I said in relation to refugees when in Opposition. I stated then that the plight of refugees would strike a chord in the heart of every Irish person with a grasp of history because our own people had to flee persecution in this land.
To suggest, however, that there is any inconsistency between the position which I am adopting now and that which I adopted then is to completely misrepresent the situation. It is to try to blur the real distinction which exists in law and in practice between a refugee, on the one hand, and an illegal immigrant on the other. There is a clear distinction between those two categories of individual. That is the unfortunate truth.
It is also true that the debate on the Refugee Act, 1996, took place against a backdrop of far fewer applications for asylum. For example, there were 424 applicants in 1995, while to date in 1998 some 1,000 applications have been lodged.
In so far as Deputy McManus's criticism in relation to manifestly unfounded procedures is concerned — set out in the letter of 10 December and referred to by her — I have listened to the comments made by Amnesty International, the Refugee Council, Trócaire and the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace. Representatives of those organisations met with my officials last March and asked for an independent person to be appointed to deal with appeals, rather than a departmental official. I have already decided to accede to that request in order to ensure transparency.
For reasons which I will put before the House in the course of my contribution, the Government has decided not to accept Deputy McManus's Bill. Careful examination of it and the issues surrounding it has led the Government to this conclusion. I propose to outline fully what action has been taken, as well as the Government's position and what action the Government has decided on for the future.
On my appointment as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform one of the first issues to be brought to my attention was the surge in the numbers of asylum seekers which had been experienced in 1996 and in the first half of 1997. I noted the decision taken by the previous Government — of which Deputy McManus and her party colleagues were members — at its last meeting to introduce passport checks on those travelling from the United Kingdom. I noted also the need for action to be taken to process applications as the system was not designed to deal, or capable of dealing, with the increasing numbers of asylum seekers.
I made inquiries about the implementation of the Refugee Act, 1996. I noted the High Court proceedings and the fact that implementation of the Act would have a negative impact. Like most people, I knew there were emerging pressures, but until the facts were presented to me I did not appreciate the pressures were such as to make the implementation of the Act itself impractical. Even if we did not have the difficulties posed by the High Court action, the reality was that the structures provided for in the Act would have been totally overwhelmed from day one, had we gone ahead with its implementation. In the circumstances, I decided not to interfere with the decision of the outgoing Government which, in clear recognition of the scale of the problem, decided to introduce passport checks on passengers between here and the United Kingdom.
I met with the then representative of the UNHCR for an overall discussion of the position and secured a commitment that UNHCR would assist in every possible way in dealing with the backlog of applications. I also secured Government approval for additional staff to be appointed to my Department to process applications as there was no hope of clearing the backlog with existing resources. I arranged for the resumption of the hearing of outstanding appeals. I pay tribute to Mr. Justice O'Malley for the time and effort he has put into dealing with appeals. Finally, I arranged for consultation to take place with UNHCR with a view to arriving at improved arrangements for dealing with applications to replace the arrangements made in 1985.
I do not propose to detain the House for any great length on those matters, but the House is aware that in relation to the recruitment of additional staff, substantial industrial relations difficulties arose. These difficulties, regrettably, caused delay but I am glad to say they were resolved on 27 February. An additional 19 staff have been deployed to this work. Interviews for retired public servants who applied for positions start on 23 March and I intend that the majority of the additional staff will be in place by the end of this month.
In relation to the new procedures agreed with UNHCR, it was not until 10 December 1997 that extensive consultations were completed and the new arrangements entered into force. Those procedures, based on the philosophy of the 1996 Refugee Act, can now, with additional staff, be brought fully into effect. Training for staff is being provided with the assistance and input of UNHCR and the first such course starts tomorrow. I hope that puts to rest the notion being peddled inside and outside the House that in some way the procedures put in place are unfair to applicants and that they do not reflect the fundamental philosophy of the Refugee Act, 1996.
Provision of legal aid is not yet established on a fully satisfactory basis. I am examining various options to ensure that legal advice is available to all asylum seekers. I am satisfied that no person has been disadvantaged by the current arrangements. In all cases, those having their cases dealt with by Judge O'Malley had, if they wanted it, the advice of a solicitor or counsel.
I took all the measures I have just outlined to deal with the immediate problems, but there are of course other issues. First, there is the law itself. I undertook, in consultation with ministerial colleagues, a review of all the legislative measures affecting immigration — immigration law and refugee law — with a view to identifying what changes might be necessary. Following preliminary examination of the position, the Government decided to ask an interdepartmental committee to prepare a report. That committee produced a report in February which included a series of recommendations for change. The Government has accepted these recommendations. The actions decided on by the Government are intended to deal with the related issues of asylum and immigration in a balanced way in the short, medium and longer term.
Before I give details to the House of the Government decisions, it is worth taking a little time to sketch some of the background to the decisions. Deputies will appreciate that in the limited time available it is not possible to give an exhaustive account of trends in migration and asylum throughout Europe, but some of the detail must be given to enable Members to have a sense of perspective on the question.
Ireland has traditionally been regarded as a country of emigration rather than immigration. Over the years, however, and especially in recent years, there has been a steady and welcome inflow of migrants. At any one time there are about 50,000 non-lrish persons legally resident in Ireland and I take this opportunity to acknowledge the contributions made to society by the thousands who come to study or work here, many of whom subsequently became Irish citizens, in accordance with the law.
Ireland has traditionally accepted a number of refugees from conflict areas around the world, the most recent example being those from the conflict in Bosnia. I am satisfied that Ireland's traditional welcome to those in such difficulty has not changed. I am pleased to say that in so far as people make application and are deemed to be refugees, that policy will not change under this Administration.
What we have experienced in recent times, however, is something quite new. It is a source of puzzlement to many people that at a time when there are no conflicts taking place near our borders of the kind that usually generate refugee movement, when we have no colonial links with countries in which political turmoil is taking place and when the number of claims for refugee status is declining in other European states, the Irish rate shows a major increase. The extent of the surge experienced is something the Government regards as an issue which requires priority Government attention. Apart from the necessity to address, as humanely as we can, the reality of thousands of immigrants who have arrived on our shores, there are significant issues, such as cost considerations, which are rightly the concern of Government. The estimated cost of dealing with asylum seekers this year is of the order of £45 million.
While the trend is generally downward in other European countries, it is the case that migration pressure on European states is a source of major concern at EU level. It is equally true that the fact that no European country actively seeks migratory workers from outside the EU has generated an increase in the number of persons who seek asylum as refugees when it is economic pressures which are the motivating factors rather than political persecution.
The challenge facing European states in general, and currently facing Ireland, is to create structures which will enable those individuals who are refugees to be quickly identified and supported while, at the same time, to preserve the integrity of the refugee concept and public confidence in the system generally, identify quickly those who are not refugees and, where necessary, arrange for their repatriation.
(Dublin West): Will the Minister give way for a question?
It is not a situation which can be properly addressed by amnesties or other similar means.
(Dublin West): I ask the Minister to give way for a question.
The Minister, without interruption.
We owe it to those genuine refugees, who are entitled to and deserving of protection, to ensure their applications are dealt with quickly and fairly and that they are not identified simply as part of a large and well organised effort to evade immigration controls. I do not believe that, as a principle, somebody who arrived before 1 January 1998, gave a name, claimed a country of origin and gave no other information — certainly none that would suggest grounds for according refugee status — should have his or her case dealt with in the same way as somebody who has fled in fear of his or her life.
The interdepartmental committee to which I have referred recommended that there should not be an amnesty of the kind proposed in the Bill.
(Dublin West): This is shameful.
In addition to what I have said tonight, the committee put forward a number of other reasons for this recommendation, including the fact that, when the right to family unification is taken into account, the numbers of persons involved could be in the order of 30,000.
So what?
This is not a figure plucked out of the air. It signals the magnitude of the inflow that might be expected, based on experience in other European countries. The costs associated with social welfare, housing, education, health care, employment, etc., for this number of people, which would be approximately £200 million to £250 million per annum, must also be borne in mind as well as the absence of legislative change.
(Dublin West): Was the Minister in favour of the regularisation of the youth in Boston?
The Minister, without interruption.
Currently there is no legislative framework in place to prevent the further influx of migrants leading to demands for more amnesties which could not easily be rejected if a general amnesty were conceded at this time. The committee recommended that processing of applications should be carried out as quickly as possible and that, as additional staff become available, a certain number should be assigned to deal with the backlog of cases while applicants from a current date should be dealt with quickly so that the backlog can be prevented from increasing.
As there will not be any amnesty the question must be addressed as to the way failed asylum applicants and illegal immigrants are to be dealt with.
The Minister should try chopping off their heads.
In that regard one has to bear in mind the clear and repeated view of the UNHCR that in order to maintain the integrity of the asylum process, those who do not qualify to remain in a country should not be allowed to remain.
The committee recommended that, where possible, repatriation should be on a voluntary basis and carried out in an orderly fashion. This is obviously the right way to approach the matter in the interests of this State, the human dignity of the failed asylum seekers or illegal immigrants and the countries of origin.
(Dublin West): The Minister should give up now.
The Government has accepted this recommendation and the related recommendation that the services of the International Organisation of Migration, which has experience in this field, should be utilised. Recent contacts between that organisation, my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs will be continued.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister, without interruption.
In the general context of international co-operation in this field the Government has also agreed the recommendation that Ireland should accept an invitation to join the Intergovernmental Consultations on Asylum, Refugee and Migration Policies in Europe, North America and Australia, which has experience and knowledge in this field.
As a further aid to the orderly return of persons to their countries of origin, the committee recommended that formal readmission agreements between Ireland and those countries should be concluded. While Ireland has not, up to now, concluded such agreements as they were not felt necessary, circumstances have altered radically over the past few years and such agreements, designed to facilitate the process of return, should prove beneficial. Most of our European partners have such agreements in place and consider them to be of value.
A further recommendation is that all appropriate assistance should be given by the relevant public bodies to facilitate the integration of recognised refugees into Irish society. On this aspect I am not satisfied that enough is currently being done. Refugees have many concerns and needs. As with the system of processing requests for recognition more can be done more quickly to help recognised refugees, and while I acknowledge the work done by bodies such as the Irish Refugee Council, I believe more needs to be done. I will be pursuing this matter with appropriate colleagues.
I turn now to the Refugee Act and what might be done. It may be that implementation of the actions I have announced this evening will lead to a situation where implementation of the Act will be possible.
When?
If that happens it will obviously be the best way forward.
The Act is the law of the land.
We must nevertheless consider what changes might be necessary in order that we have in place arrangements, based on the philosophy in the Act, to deal with those who claim protection in this country in the event that the particular circumstances we now face become the norm.
The committee expressed the view that, given the experience of the last 18 months, it seems to be the case that a policy in this area, which is independent from and substantially different from that of our European neighbours, is not sustainable in the short or long-term as the number of asylum seekers affected by, for example, changes in policy regarding arrangements, etc., by other European countries could encourage large scale movement to Ireland of such persons. As 98 per cent of asylum seekers evade immigration controls and claim to be unaware of how they arrived in Ireland, return to the appropriate EU country under the Dublin Convention may not be possible in many cases, and Ireland could be faced with the costs of processing claims and repatriation costs.
(Dublin West): It would be cheaper to send them by Ryanair.
The committee recommended that a comparative study of Irish legislation and that of EU partners be carried out to ascertain what changes might be necessary to the Refugee Act to align Irish policy more closely with that of EU partners. The Government has accepted that recommendation and arrangements are being made to have this study carried out by an independent body.
The committee has made other important recommendations — for example, in relation to aspects of immigration and citizenship — but I will return to these at another time. One recommendation which must be addressed as a matter of priority, and is incidentally the final committee recommendation I shall refer to this evening, is the need to introduce into our law penalties for people involved in trafficking in illegal immigration to Ireland. Currently our law is lacking in this regard and there is evidence of organised trafficking.
A further area of concern, linked to trafficking, is the exploitation of illegal immigrants by unscrupulous employers. Current aliens legislation provides for a fine of £2 on the illegal worker. Clearly this is wrong and legislation is needed so that the employer is liable for penalties in keeping with modern life. Work has started on the preparation of draft legislation in these two areas and is being accorded priority.
The increased number of asylum seekers arriving here has, unfortunately, given rise to expressions of racism that were not articulated in Irish society up to now. This has to be a matter of considerable concern and regret to all responsible people. The hostility which is sometimes directed at asylum seekers has, unfortunately, also spilled over into racist remarks and behaviour directed at other members of racial minorities in the State. This is something which has to be deplored. Last December this House unanimously passed a motion which, among other things, condemned sentiments and manifestations of racism as inimical to respect for the dignity of all human beings and deplored hostile statements or acts directed against those from other countries seeking refuge in the State. I reiterate that condemnation and I know Deputies join me in this.
As the House will be aware, my Department had an allocation of £100,000 last year to spend on activities relating to European Year against Racism. I am satisfied that much worthwhile activity to combat racism took place in 1997 and I am examining how the impetus created by this can be sustained in the longer term.
I place special emphasis on four inter-related points. The first is the need to ensure that debate on the subject of asylum seekers is balanced and is based on fact, not on confusion. Some of the comments that have been made on the subject in recent times are neither balanced nor fact-based. One detects an underlying suggestion that it is somehow illegitimate for the State to insist that immigration flows must be regulated. All countries seek to regulate immigration flows. Nobody's interests, least of all those of immigrants, would be served simply by allowing immigration to take place in a totally haphazard and unregulated manner. It is less than balanced, therefore, to give the impression, as some have done, that it is fair game to regard those whose very difficult task it is to apply the regulatory regime provided for in laws enacted in this House as anti-immigrant simply because they do their jobs. The slur is not warranted and those who have in the past held the position I hold now also know it is not warranted.
Second, it is important that in debate we recognise the clear distinction between a genuine refugee and a person who has simply managed to evade immigration controls.
(Dublin West): As in the 1980s.
The Minister, without interruption.
(Dublin West): The Minister is a hypocrite.
Deputy Higgins had an opportunity to contribute.
I again refer to the attempts by some people to misrepresent my position on this issue by seeking to blur the distinction between a refugee and an illegal immigrant. It serves nobody's interests, least of all those of refugees, to pretend that everybody who applies for refugee status is a person who is fleeing persecution. The reality, in line with the international experience, is that at most about 10 per cent of applicants will, following examination of their claims, be found to be refugees. The UNHCR attaches great importance to the distinction I have just mentioned because it knows that the people who suffer most, if the distinction is blurred, are the very people who are most in need of protection.
Third, it is important to understand that the absence of an amnesty does not mean that asylum applicants who do not qualify for refugee status automatically suffer injustice. I will look very carefully at all the cases where applicants fail to qualify. If there are special circumstances I will, naturally, take these considerations on board. I am in no doubt that it is much better to proceed in this way than by way of amnesty, which not only rewards meritorious and unmeritorious cases alike, but would most certainly send the wrong signal in terms of addressing illegal immigration flows in the future.
Those who wrongly claim refugee status and who simply evade immigration controls and those who ruthlessly traffic immigrants past our controls, like all law breakers, need to understand very clearly that it will not be tolerated. The situation whereby those entering illegally could anticipate long delays while their cases are being processed is about to end and traffickers or any others who pretend to them that they will be allowed to remain here, when they have no grounds for doing so, are misleading them in a most serious and ruthless way.
It is vital that debate on this very sensitive issue should not take on a character which could be described as racist or anti-immigrant. For this to happen, it is not necessary for anybody to make remarks which could be characterised as anti-immigrant; it is sufficient to lay that accusation, unfairly, at someone else's doorstep. We need fair, rational, evenly tempered discussion, not scaremongering. The Government has decided, for the reasons I have given, not to accept this Bill. Following careful review of the position, I believe it has arrived at the correct decision.
(Mayo): To say the House is disappointed with the Minister's response is an understatement. We are appalled because tonight, instead of the enlightenment we thought we had in 1996, all we have is a long-winded attempted vindication of the shambles that is our policy on refugees. There was bluster from beginning to end, department speak from start to finish.
The Deputy is wrong.
(Mayo): It is a pity the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, turned down a glorious opportunity to adopt an all-party approach and accept the Bill. It is a pity he could not see that this, of all issues, transcends party politics. It is a pity the people who came here tonight with great expectations do not have £500,000 or £1 million for the naturalisation for investment scheme. Instead of the “not an inch” policy, it will be the “no problem” policy, given the pedigree of some of the people who were given passports in the past.
This is a good Bill, well crafted, with definite parameters and safeguards. It is short, clear, prescriptive and workable. I ask the Minister between now and 8.30 p.m. tomorrow to rethink the matter because it is a good Bill, and I commend Deputy McManus and Democratic Left for introducing it.
This Government inherited the Refugee Act, 1995, which was good legislation. I listened carefully to the Minister and, judging by the departmental speak and the coded language, it would seem he is intent on throwing this Bill overboard. In fact, they has thrown it overboard because they have selectively chosen legislation which suited the Department and discarded the rest.
An interdepartmental committee has subverted the legislation.
(Mayo): Absolutely.
Deputy Jim Higgins, without interruption.
(Mayo): What seems to have slipped Minister O'Donoghue's mind is that Ireland is a signatory to the Geneva convention relating to the status of refugees, its protocols and other legal instruments. Ireland has an obligation to provide asylum for refugees.
Let us be quite clear about this; we are talking about genuine refugees, not economic migrants. Asylum seekers must not be sent back if there is any risk of persecution, torture or death because of race, religion, nationality or political or social actions.
We are looking for an independent system of assessing applications and officials should be properly trained and sensitised to dealing with refugee applicants. We are talking about a fair, open and objective independent appeals procedure and adequate legal and language resources to enable these people to process their applications. Border officials should be properly trained and, last but not least, there should be speedy processing of applications. That is it in a nutshell. There is nothing mysterious about it and it involves no great difficulties. What is required is a simple set of seven or eight basic streamlined procedures and yet the Minister has turned down this Bill because it attempts to fill the vacuum left by ministerial inaction.
It is generally recognised that one of the most glaring performances of negative opposition was that of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform between December 1994 and June 1997. Except for the rarest of rare exceptions, literally every difficulty in the Justice sphere was firmly labelled as the personal responsibility of the then Minister for Justice. Blame for even the most trivial administrative mishaps was laid firmly at the feet of the Minister.
One of these rare exceptions to this constant barrage of verbal bludgeoning was Deputy O'Donoghue's performance on the Refugee Bill, 1995. On 19 October 1995 Deputy O'Donoghue told the Dáil about "the hugely prohibitive red tape in the processing of applications for Refugee Status". It was inexcusable. He grieved for the plight of refugees as "persons displaced from their country of origin becoming subjects of an even more obstructive and debilitating syndrome while waiting in a surreal haze of indecision as the powers that be decide whether or not to grant them refugee status".
Refugees, yes.
(Mayo): Fine sentiments laced with sympathy and understanding. Deputy O'Donoghue became Minister O'Donoghue with full ministerial responsibility for the welfare and plight of the people whose cause he purported to champion through the passage of the Refugee Bill through this House.
Does the Deputy understand English?
(Mayo): He has been Minister for eight months and not only has he failed to introduce a fair, equitable and transparent measure to deal with refugees and to ensure that applications are dealt with in an independent fashion, the reverse has been the situation. The Minister has stepped backwards by replacing the Refugee Act, 1995, of the Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left Government with a so-called fast track system shrouded in secrecy where the entire decision making process is vested within the corridors of his Department. This so-called fast track system, to which Deputy McManus referred, was announced by the Minister on 10 December 1997. Tonight the Minister reminded us that there is no inconsistency. As Deputy O'Donoghue seems to be suffering from amnesia, let me, again, remind him that he told the Dáil in 1995 that Amnesty International had demonstrated that “experience abroad has shown that the fast track procedures save neither time nor money. I totally agree with them”, he told us solemnly.
We all do.
(Mayo): Not only is he now presiding over such a so-called fast track system introduced by him, albeit decried by him in Opposition, but one would be hard put to devise a more arcane and biased process. This was to be Minister O'Donoghue's Irish solution to an international problem. His quick fix solution.
This system is neither fair, open nor independent.
Wrong.
(Mayo): There is no guarantee, for example, of an interpreter. The Minister's document setting out the fast track procedure tells us “where necessary and possible an interpreter shall be provided”. People coming from a foreign country with little or no knowledge of English, trying to wrestle with new complicated procedures and to explain the dilemma and political situation which led them to abandon their country, are not guaranteed the fundamental right or facility of making themselves understood. Surely there should be the guaranteed right to an interpreter in all cases, yet the regulation in relation to this entitlement is unclear and ambiguous.
The decision as to whether one is granted asylum is not taken by any independent person, agency or party but by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. If the application is turned down, the Minister tells us "the appeal will be decided by a person of more senior rank, in consultation with the UNHCR where possible".
Where possible.
(Mayo): Even if it is possible for the UNHCR to make representations, the UN body gets a mere seven days within which to do so. Here we have one official in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform deciding whether a decision taken by a colleague official in the same Department, possibly on the same floor or, indeed, in the same office, was in accordance with the Department's own criteria.
The whole situation is ludicrous and indefensible. Surely any appeal procedure must be presided over by somebody at a considerable remove from the person who made the original decision.
The Minister's so-called fast track procedure is quite specific in setting down the range of situations which would undermine the basis of a valid application for asylum. For example, the Minister tells us in clause (f) that an application is deemed not to be in order if "the applicant, without reasonable cause and in bad faith, destroyed identity documents, withheld relevant information or otherwise obstructed investigation of the application". Yet the Minister who on 6 February 1996 told the Select Committee on Legislation and Security:
A genuine applicant might actually destroy travel documents or identity papers without reasonable cause even on the advice of a third party. In view of the fearful situation of an asylum seeker and the logistics of the situation, it appears to be unreasonable to penalise the individual.
Deputy O'Donoghue went even further and moved an amendment to give this legislative effect, and now he stands his amendment on its head. So much for consistency, let alone compassion.
The Deputy does not understand.
(Mayo): I do. The stark reality is that our performance in dealing with asylum seekers is a disgrace. Instead of, as Deputy O'Donoghue lectured the Dáil in 1995, seizing “this opportunity to provide refuge for those in fear of persecution” we have totally reneged on our international and humanitarian obligations.
On one hand, we pretend to be passionate protagonists for human rights while, on the other, even Members of this House have shown a frightening antagonism towards refugees. In spite of our economic boom the rights of this small and vulnerable group have not only not been upheld but have been flagrantly disregarded. We vaunt ourselves as a modern, progressive democracy. However, Ireland alone of all EU member states has no laws governing the treatment of refugees. Our legislation is not refugee legislation, it is aliens legislation dating back to the 1930s which was designed to keep Nazi spies out of the country.
Article 14 (1) of the UN Declaration of Human Rights states that "everyone has the right to seek and enjoy other countries' asylum from persecution". However, in this country, we leave 4,000 of these people locked in a legal limbo between the two canals of our capital city. Given the Government's foot dragging and a certain public hysteria, one would imagine that some sort of mass invasion or threat to our sovereignty was afoot when the reality is that the number of refugees coming to Ireland is a barely perceptible trickle compared to the numbers that have been hosted by other EU countries.
There have been unsubstantiated claims about each refugee bringing in an average of five family members with them. Was this the experience when we allowed a few Vietnamese, Bosnians or Hungarians to enter the country? There have been exaggerated and grossly irresponsible newspaper headlines such as "5,000 Refugees Flooding into Ireland" or "Refugee Rapist on the Rampage" when the reality is that only a minute number of refugees have committed crimes within the State. However, there has been a typical blanket condemnation for the actions of a few. As Deputy McManus stated, on one hand, we will not allow these people to work pending determination of their applications for asylum and, on the other, we brand them as spongers in newspaper headlines such as "Crackdown on 2,000 Sponger Refugees".
The spectacle of the Department allowing 2,000 asylum seekers from central Africa and eastern Europe to queue for hours in pouring rain outside its offices on Saturday, 11 October last, to renew their identity cards spoke volumes for the Government's so-called concern for these people. There seems to be a total absence of coherence in Government policy. However, the Programme for Government contains a clear commitment to implement the Refugee Act, 1996. There were no ifs, buts or maybes, no codicils or conditions; there was a clear commitment in An Action Programme for the Millennium to implement the provisions of the Act. Distilling what the Minister stated earlier, I have no doubt that he is in the process of throwing the Act overboard. The raw reality is that the Government has made absolutely no attempt to seek to have the courts make an early determination on the challenge to the Act. Repeated inquiries have been addressed to the Taoiseach on the Order of Business with regard to what is being done by way of approaches to the courts to ensure they prioritise this legislation. However, we have received no indication that any approaches have been made to have it treated as a priority and determined once and for all.
It has been subverted by an interdepartmental committee which is more important than any manifesto.
(Mayo): Yes.
What did Deputy Michael D. Higgins's party do when it was in Government?
(Mayo): A headline in The Irish Times on 12 August last stated that “O'Donoghue signals intention to amend unimplemented Refugee Act”. According to the article the Minister informed UN officials that he intended to make changes in the Act and also that he intended to contact the UNHCR before making such changes. On 27 August 1997 the newspaper carried the headline “Law change to give asylum seekers new right of appeal”. We are still waiting for the changes in the legislation. However, instead of making such legislative changes, the Minister has introduced the most draconian asylum vetting regime in Europe.
Nonsense.
(Mayo): A number of weeks ago the Progressive Democrat wing of the Government informed us, via the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell, that “Obligations to refugees will be met in full”. God knows what that is supposed to mean.
Ask Deputy Healy-Rae.
(Mayo): One gets the impression that these periodic newspaper headlines are ritual window dressing designed to send out some kind of positive signal from time to time. What has happened, unfortunately, is that such indecision and indifference has created the ideal vacuum for sinister racists such as Ms Ní Chonaill to launch her immigrant control platform and to flaunt their fascist and hardline propaganda.
The net result of the so-called fast-track system is that we now seem to be on the brink of mass deportations. If these are challenged, as undoubtedly they will, one can imagine the chaos that will ensue in the courts and the manner in which the courts will be clogged up by each case meriting an individual hearing. In its judgment in the Anisimova case in December the Supreme Court firmly laid down that the rules of natural justice and constitutional justice must apply. This clearly means that each case must be heard individually.
We live in "Ireland of the welcomes", which is preparing for another boom tourist season. As Deputy McManus stated, people from "Ireland of the welcomes" have been welcomed by countries across the globe. However, we are on the brink of mass banishment of people who came here in the valid expectation that their dignity would be respected and they would be welcomed in their escape from repressive regimes in their own countries. They came with the valid expectation that they would be allowed to make a fresh start and by contributing to their own welfare would thereby contribute to the welfare of the country which was about to host them. How baffled, bewildered and bitter they must be.
Our lack of performance in dealing with the refugee issue says something about us as a nation. It is at times such as this that the real reflection of who we are or what we stand for becomes obvious. It is an extraordinary and indifferent performance for a country whose people for decades scattered to the four corners of the world. It is an extraordinary performance for a country whose people were offered safe haven in different corners of the globe and who were allowed to ply their wares and carve out new dignified existences for themselves and their descendants. It is an extraordinary performance for a country which even in the past decade lobbied Irish-American political opinion in the US, as if it were our birthright, for Donnelly and Morrison visas in order to legitimise the status of the thousands of young Irish people who were economic refugees in that country.
(Dublin West): Tens of thousands.
(Mayo): It is an extraordinary performance for a country which agonised about the young Irish people living in cardboard city on the banks of the Thames.
At the height of the IRA bombing campaign in Britain, Irish people complained about being harassed by immigration officials there. There were howls of indignation and people inquired why they were selected, singled out, obliged to complete documentation or pulled aside into a corner. Foreigners from outside the EU are now being subjected to the same treatment in this country.
Mr. Hayes
Hear, hear.
(Mayo): On the surface it seems fair enough. However, it ignores the harsh reality of the refugees' world.
Debate adjourned.