(Mayo): I wish to share my time with Deputy Gay Mitchell.
Private Members' Business. - Asylum Seekers (Regularisation of Status) (No. 2) Bill, 1998: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Is that agreed? Agreed.
(Mayo): Yesterday the Minister resorted to the same type of irresponsible headline hysteria which has characterised much of the debate on the refugee issue. Unfortunately some of the newspapers bought his propaganda lock, stock and barrel, with banner headlines that refugees cost £1 million per week and possibly as much as £200 million or £250 million per annum. This is off the top of the head stuff which does serious damage to the merits and arguments surrounding this issue.
I do not know the true figure but the Minister has once again seriously exaggerated the scale and cost. Yesterday Deputy Gerry Reynolds tabled a question to the Minister for Health and Children on the amount of financial resources provided to the Eastern Health Board for the provision of temporary accommodation for homeless persons and refugees for each of the years from 1994 to 1997. The health board has primary responsibility for this matter. The figure in 1994 was £1.5 million, while it was £6.813 million in 1997. This is a far cry from £1 million per week or £250 million per annum.
The blame for the figure, whatever it is, lies firmly with the Minister whose lethargy and indecision has contributed significantly to the backlog of refugee applications. If he had honoured his commitment to implement the Refugee Act, or its main portions, then the scale of the problem and the cost need not have arisen. If a proper, independent system had been put in place the backlog could have been greatly reduced.
Spokespersons for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform were recently reported as saying that the millions of pounds spent in maintaining asylum seekers might be better spent on development programmes in their own countries. Is it now official Government policy that black babies are all right as long as they stay in their own countries?
That is a terrible thing to say.
(Mayo): If the Minister and his Department had the foresight to see these people as a resource rather than a liability then the scale of the problem and the financial burden would have been minimised. The Minister has a glorious opportunity to eliminate the cost on which he placed major emphasis and to wipe the slate clean by accepting this Bill.
Given the scale of what is involved, acceptance of the Bill is the obvious solution. It would give the Government breathing space to implement the main provisions of the Refugee Act or to introduce new legislation. It would enable a fresh start to be made in dealing with new applicants, free up resources within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and allow the thousands of asylum seekers locked in inner city ghettos to disperse and relocate in other areas. We would all benefit from their ethnic presence in our areas. I say this as someone from a small community in the west which has a considerable cross section of people from Pakistan, Libya, Morocco and Syria. It would enable applicants to take up employment and, therefore, reduce social welfare and health costs. It would also allow the State's economy to benefit from the academic, linguistic and manual skills many of these immigrants possess. Not least, it would redeem the image of Ireland and redress the damage done to our international reputation by the shoddy manner in which this issue has been handled. It would salvage a situation which has been badly handled administratively and on humanitarian grounds.
In times gone by there was a substantial Jewish community in the inner city area of Dublin, particularly around the South Circular Road. I represent Jewish people, who have a good sense of humour, and I hope I do not offend them when I say that in the past this area was known as Little Jerusalem. While I hope it will not offend any of my Moslem constituents, Little Jerusalem was christened Little Mecca when Moslems moved into the area which Jewish people formerly lived in. The Jewish people moved out to Rathgar, Terenure and other parts of the city where they are constituents of mine. They have made a great input to the civic and civil life of this country. The presence of the Jewish and Moslem communities has not created any problems because they integrated into the community at large. The presence of Bosnian and Vietnamese refugees has not created any problem either because it was done on a planned basis.
While acknowledging there is a problem, this is because preparation is not being made on a planned basis to deal with the immigrant issue. We have been used to sending emigrants abroad. Some 800,000 people of Irish birth live in Britain. According to the last census, 11.5 per cent of the population of greater London are either Irish or of Irish birth. We are used to Irish people being treated as immigrants abroad. We, above all, should be generous in our treatment of immigrants.
For that reason, I suggest the Government should appoint a Minister or Minister of State with overall responsibility for immigrant issues. That would cover not just visa questions but also social welfare, housing, education, integration and intercommunal relations. It is not fair to the refugee or immigrant community, nor is it fair to the indigenous community, that this situation should be left to fester without a planned, compassionate and co-ordinated response. People's reactions are based on fear, but if we have a co-ordinated plan which is fair and just — both for the local community and the new community which has joined us — as well as being well thought out, co-ordinated and balanced, people will not allow their judgments to be coloured by fear. We need a specific Minister to co-ordinate a compassionate Government response to immigrant issues, including intercommunal relations. If for no other reason, it should be done so that the House can question the Minister on Government policy as well as putting proposals forward to head off communal strife. There are people who would be only too happy to build up such strife but we can nip it in the bud if we have a Minister and a co-ordinated plan and if we concentrate on dealing with this issue on a cross-party basis.
With the permission of the House I would like to share my time with Deputies Brian Lenihan and Callely.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
For a party which has such an aversion to amnesties I am surprised that Democratic Left should even contemplate introducing this Bill. It is significant to note that this method of addressing the issue of refugees, immigration and asylum seekers did not cross their minds when the party was in Government. In fact, I note that the previous Government, at its last meeting, decided to introduce passport checks on people travelling from the United Kingdom.
On taking office, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, met the UNHCR representative and a commitment was given that the UNHCR would assist in every possible way in dealing with the backlog of applications for asylum. Consultations took place with the UNHCR to improve arrangements for dealing with applications, to replace those in place since 1985. The new arrangements have been in place since last December. They include the availability of legal advice for asylum seekers who wish to obtain it.
In researching this matter, I took the opportunity of reading the 1994 report of the United Nations' High Commissioner for Refugees. I will quote three short extracts to contextualise my comments.
On page 5, paragraph 17, under the heading "Strategies for Prevention and Solutions", the report states:
It is in the areas of prevention and solutions, and thus primarily with relation to the countries of origin of refugees or potential refugees, that the need and the possibility for new initiatives have been recognised. Serious violations of human rights are a major factor causing refugees to flee their homes and also a major obstacle to the solution of refugee problems through voluntary repatriation. Safeguarding human rights is one of the best ways to prevent displacement and to permit safe return.
On page 7, paragraph 23 of the report states:
In the industrialised world, mixed movements of refugees and migrants present special protection problems, including overloading asylum procedures, both for Governments and for UNHCR.
On page 8, paragraph 27 of the report states:
The disturbing trend of intolerance and violence against foreigners including asylum seekers and refugees, by segments of the population in a number of countries continued to be observed in the reporting period, [which, I gather, is 1994] despite preventive and deterrent measures taken by the authorities to improve their security and prosecute the perpetrators of violent acts.
The production of this Bill by Deputy McManus provides us with a timely opportunity to address the issues related to refugees and asylum seekers as well as reflecting in a calm and rational manner on what is, for Ireland, the relatively new phenomenon of immigration. For many centuries our brothers and sisters, sons and daughters sought the not always welcoming shores of our nearest neighbours, the United Kingdom, in addition to what was then the remoteness of the United States, Australia and New Zealand.
In recent times they have been dispersed to the African and American continents and deep into Asia. Few were emigrants by choice and they worked hard in often difficult and inhospitable circumstances to make a living in their new found homes. Many made a significant impact in their adopted homes. I do not propose to recite the prominent names but, as we head towards St. Patrick's Day, I want to pay tribute to the unsung daughters and sons of the Irish diaspora all over the world for the contribution they have made to their host countries.
As we enjoy relative wealth and prosperity we are clearly an attractive destination for immigrants from other countries who wish, for a range of very good reasons, to make their homes here. I salute the 50,000 non-Irish people who are legally resident here. I pay tribute to them for their contribution to the development of Irish society. We can only benefit from their talents and expertise.
Our record in accepting refugees from areas of conflict throughout the world has been a good one. We responded — perhaps somewhat inadequately and hesitantly — to refugees from Hungary. Our response in accepting victims of the Vietnamese conflict was generous for its time. At a time when our own resources were limited, we tried to ensure our education system and our health and social welfare policies responded to the needs of the Vietnamese community. I pay tribute to the many voluntary groups who worked with these refugees and I acknowledge the assistance given by such statutory bodies as the City of Dublin VEC in helping the Vietnamese community to integrate into Irish society.
Our response to the Bosnian conflict reflected a new growth of maturity in our approach to refugees and to the assimilation of the victims of political oppression and terrorist warfare. A great number of the original tranche of Bosnian refugees have now put down roots here. They have progressed into employment as well as availing of incentives to purchase their own homes and participate fully in the life of their adopted community.
A new phenomenon is presenting itself, however. At a time when conflict levels are at an historic low and when the number of claims for refugee status is falling in the rest of the EU, the Irish rate shows a major increase. Many of the newer immigrants seem to have evaded immigration controls. They seem to give a name and claim a country of origin but give no other information. These illegal immigrants who arrive here willingly or otherwise, besmirch the name of genuine refugees who deserve protection and support. The proposed amnesty is too blunt an instrument. It adopts an indiscriminate approach to people's lives. Each person who comes here deserves to be assessed on an individual basis. I oppose this measure, therefore, as anti-humanitarian.
It is imperative that we develop a coherent immigration policy which should take account of the capacity of the country to assimilate new immigrants bearing in mind the expertise they bring with them, available employment opportunities and the capacity of the State to provide for the housing, education, health and other needs of immigrants. There must be a distribution of immigrants throughout the country in an orderly fashion. It is also important to signal to those who engage in the illegal trafficking of immigrants that they will face the full rigour of the law for their wrongdoing.
Last December this House unanimously passed a motion condemning sentiments and manifestations of racism as inimical to respect for the dignity of all human beings and deploring hostile sentiments or acts directed against those from other countries seeking refuge in this State. I reiterate that condemnation.
I compliment Deputy McManus on bringing this Private Members' Bill before the House. I do not agree with all aspects or the primary purpose of the Asylum Seekers (Regularisation of Status)(No. 2) Bill. In essence, the Bill concerns the 4,000 refugee applications currently outstanding. This proposal is one way of dealing with those applications and the current unacceptable logjam in the processing of applications for refugee status, but I do not support it.
The biggest weakness in the Bill is that it does not make the distinction between a refugee and an illegal immigrant. The UNHCR made its views known on this, namely, that a clear distinction should be made between the two and that those who do not qualify should not be allowed to remain in this country. I have expressed that view in the past.
I hope this debate will have a beneficial impact on the current unacceptable position. Why are 4,000 applications outstanding? Over what period of time were those applications made? Who is responsible for them and is there collective responsibility? According to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, 5,264 asylum seekers made an application for refugee status in the period from 1 January 1994 to October 1997. Of those who applied, less than 5 per cent were recognised, less than 10 per cent were refused and 70 per cent of cases were left outstanding. That is an appalling record. The Government responsible at that time was the rainbow coalition made up of Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left. The record shows that Government failed in its duty to asylum seekers, among many other failures.
I welcome the announcement by the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, in the House during the debate last evening with regard to the commencement of recruitment of additional staff in his Department to process asylum seekers' applications for refugee status. I have a proposal in that regard which I will refer to later. I note, regrettably, that there were delays in recruitment up to 27 February 1998, that only 19 additional staff have been recruited to date, that the provision of legal aid to applicants is not satisfactory and that, more importantly, a time schedule has not been put in place to address such issues.
I issued a press release on 24 November last following an Eastern Health Board special meeting. The press release had a cover sheet and a five page Eastern Health Board report which indicated the position regarding asylum seekers as well as some early warning signals. Following the press release I received some unfair comments and terms were attributed to me by the media and others which were not factual. The EHB report and recent statistics indicate that Ireland is the only European country experiencing a continuous increase in those seeking refugee status. Other associated issues which were referred to in that report have been proved to be factual.
I also indicated at the time that genuine asylum seekers were experiencing unacceptable delays in having their cases processed. I indicated that the cost of delays in processing applications had escalated out of control which was a waste of scarce resources and a misuse of taxpayers' funds. I also indicated that I was fully supportive of providing refuge for the many genuine refugees but that we should not be expected to finance the long-term stay of undeserving applicants who have no prospect or right to be admitted to this country. I called on the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to speed up the processing of applications and to put in place a satisfactory mechanism which would be in keeping with the UNHCR guidelines.
I am satisfied my efforts helped to focus attention on this issue and some measures were addressed. I understand the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, put new structures and procedures in place concerning the independent assessment of appeals, reached agreement with the UNHCR on such assessment, additional staff requirements were identified and an agreed training programme, with the assistance of the UNHCR, was put in place. An interdepartmental group was also set up made up of senior civil servants from the Departments of Foreign Affairs, Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Environment and Local Government, Social, Community and Family Affairs and the Office of the Attorney General.
I am disappointed by the comments from Deputy McManus regarding this expert group. As a former Minister of State I thought she would have more recognition of the work of such a group. This group has already identified two issues. First, changes should be made to the Refugee Act to align Irish policy more closely with that of our EU partners and, second, penalties should be introduced into our law for those involved in trafficking illegal immigrants to Ireland.
The Government stands over the motion passed in this House last December condemning racism in all its manifestations. I object to the offensive remarks made about me on this subject. Despite the attempts by some Members of this House who made off the wall comments, they did not succeed. Apart from expressing my disappointment with irresponsible Members who tell untruths and avail of privilege, I do not intend to embarrass any Member. A number of them know of the abuse to which I refer.
I am deeply conscious of the duties and responsibilities placed on me as a public representative and as a member of Fianna Fáil with its great traditions. Fianna Fáil is a democratic republican party born out of a revolutionary tradition. We have a proven and proud record on all humanitarian issues. Those of us in Fianna Fáil will continue to play an effective role in bringing an end to violations of human rights whenever necessary.
In regard to the current logjam, special priority focus is required. I ask the Minister to seek Government approval to put in place a rapid, compassionate response unit to adequately address all relevant issues, particularly applications for refugee status, and a satisfactory time schedule that would be adhered to. The challenge is to identify as quickly as possible genuine refugees deserving protection and ensure that their applications are dealt with speedily and fairly.
Last November I indicated that current records showed a considerable proportion of applicants are found not to be deserving of asylum. This point was confirmed last night when the Minister indicated that the reality, in line with international experience, is that only 10 per cent of applicants will, following examination, be found to be genuine refugees.
I welcome the Minister outlining his policy in relation to genuine refugees and illegal immigrants. We should combine our efforts to ensure that genuine applicants are accommodated and that those abusing the system are rejected.
I am opposed to this Bill and I welcome the fact the Minister indicated his opposition to it. The kernel of the Bill can be found in section 2 which states that a person who, before 1 January 1998, had made or was entitled to make an application seeking the status of a refugee in the State, shall be permitted by the Minister to remain and reside in the State and shall be called an admitted asylum seeker. The Bill equates an admitted asylum seeker with a refugee under the Refugee Act. It provides an amnesty for entrants who arrived here before 1 January 1998 and who applied for refugee status. In effect, any person who arrived here before 1 January 1998, gave a name and country of origin but gave no other information can be treated as a refugee.
The Minister indicated that 98 per cent of asylum seekers evade immigration controls and claim to be unaware of how they arrived in Ireland. It is extraordinary that any responsible political party would put forward as a serious political proposal the idea that a group of people, 98 per cent of whom have evaded immigration controls and claimed to be unaware of how they arrived in Ireland, should automatically, without further investigation, be given the rights of a refugee under the refugee legislation.
There have been unfortunate delays in dealing with applications for refugee status and those applications must be dealt with. There is no point rehearsing the matter; the delay caused by the High Court proceedings and the huge volume of cases that arose has been rehashed many times at Question Time and in the Minister's speech. I come back to that simple fact disclosed by the Minister. This is not a case of people arriving at ports of embarkation and claiming they are fleeing from persecution. It is a group of people, the vast majority of whom have consciously evaded immigration controls, and we should not enact legislation that retrospectively solves that problem.
Fianna Fáil enacted legislation for tax dodgers.
Deputy De Rossa's comrades on the left in other parts of Europe have suffered great blows on this issue. The Minister has the official documentation at his disposal and his figures are correct.
It has not been mentioned in the debate, and it is not an urban legend — it is well known to the citizens — that Ireland is advertised on the Internet as a desirable location from a social security point of view. It is also advertised on the Internet — I do not fault Deputy McManus or Democratic Left for this because the ball was initially hopped by the Tánaiste — that Ireland may offer an amnesty to people coming here. It is widely known that there is a good deal of traffic in the smuggling of persons into the State, and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will have to introduce legislation to deal with that problem. A large number of persons are being brought into this State in complete defiance of immigration controls.
The argument will be made immediately that I am guilty of racism in expressing this point of view but if we are to maintain public confidence in our immigration procedures they must be seen to be fair, balanced, working and based on rational principles. The position that has developed to date is not fair or balanced and it is not based on rational principles. To introduce an amnesty in this area will not base the system on a rational principle. That is the problem we face.
The Minister outlined that he has recruited additional staff to dispose of outstanding applications for refugee status. We are confusing two distinct issues here — refugee status and immigration policy. In regard to refugee status, the Minister stated that in his view — it seems to be the view of most commentators — a minority of applications relate to genuine refugees. Nobody disputes that refugees should be admitted and accepted here and accorded the status to which they are entitled under the legislation.
The other issue we must address is immigration policy. For the first time in modern Irish history there is substantial net immigration. We need to develop a rational immigration policy where definite quotas of people will be welcome from other lands, if necessary, outside the European Union, and given an opportunity to work, set up businesses and advance themselves here. If such a system was established there would be public confidence in the immigration procedures. There is, however, growing lack of public confidence in the immigration procedures. There are the seeds of great political peril in this regard. The comrades of Democratic Left in many continental countries have seen the damage it has done in their constituencies, with the growth of extreme right wing parties, xenophobic parties and anti-democratic forces. We have seen that in France and other continental countries. We have an opportunity to learn from the mistakes made in other countries and to address this problem in a rational way.
Our work visa arrangements administered by the Department of Enterprise and Employment are too restrictive. We should consider giving an opportunity to genuine immigrants to live and work here. The present arrangement is not working. There appears to be a consciousness abroad that Ireland can be a haven for economic migrants. There is public perception that there is abuse of the welfare system. Alas, urban legends are spreading and every Deputy hears at advice centres that social housing is not allocated to the local population because priority is accorded to immigrants. Unless the issue is addressed in a radical way along the lines I have suggested, that will create an ugly public mood.
I understand the sentiment that motivated this measure. It has had the benefit of bringing the issue before the House, but I am not satisfied that the introduction of an amnesty will resolve the problems.
The Labour Party supports this Bill. I compliment Democratic Left for introducing it and I compliment Fine Gael for giving what is a valuable resource for an Opposition party, Private Members' time, so that the Bill could be taken.
I listened with great care to what was said last evening and again this evening. We are tested by what will happen in terms of whether the Bill will be passed. I wish to respond to a point made by Deputy Brian Lenihan who suggested that a distinction should be drawn between refugee policy and immigration policy. The problem is that failure in one area is being used to create fear in the other. This Bill would create a space in which a thoughtful, proper, internationally responsible refugee policy could be constructed for the introduction into Irish society of those who come from abroad. If this Bill is defeated, the same Department that is responsible for both matters will continue with the minor changes made and announced by the Minister.
Deputy Lenihan said that there is a growing lack of confidence in Ireland's immigration policy. However there is widespread lack of confidence in the ability of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to exercise its responsibilities in the area of refugees and immigrants. I do not say this easily. I worked for a long time on migration and I taught the only course on the island of Ireland on the sociology of migration for a number of years at University College, Galway. I also worked with the Committee for the Defence of Refugees and Emigrants in Basel. I have travelled and worked with different voluntary organisations which dealt with the welfare of migrants in different parts of the world, including Somalia, North Africa, Central America and Turkey. I have first hand knowledge of the trauma and stress of both refugees and migrants.
With the agreement of the House, I propose to share my time with Deputy Enright.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
That experience has taught me a number of things. I hoped that as this Bill was introduced there would be less recrimination about what happened and more commitment to what must now happen if we are to clear the decks and introduce procedures which are acceptable nationally and internationally. Obviously that will not be the case. This will fill many people with despair.
My professional training, as somebody who dealt for nearly 20 years with the sociology of migration, leads me to question every figure in the Minister's speech. I challenge the basis for these calculations. For example, the estimated cost of the suggested immigrant flow is based on an assumption that all will automatically seek welfare and none will work. It is an assumption of a negative contribution on the basis that immigrants will not seek employment. I am not defeated in this by the statement that it is a condition they cannot work because one would simply argue in circles about why people do not work, etc.
I challenge their assumptions on the international statistics on migration. I also challenge them to introduce the methodology by which the calculation was made both in terms of the numbers and particularly the projected and imputed costs. They have no basis in the literature. Furthermore, it is irresponsible to put such figures into public currency to create, perhaps unintentionally, an atmosphere of fear and to make matters difficult.
In this Dáil and previous ones I received letters of a racist kind, particularly when former Deputy Moosajee Bhamjee was a colleague in this House. I forwarded some of them to the Minister and I received a courteous response to the effect that they were being dealt with. They were encouraging racist attacks on members of the Chinese community, among others, in Dublin.
There have been disgraceful racist slogans in different parts of Ireland, but we should get our heads clear on this. There is a convoluted reasoning that we must not upset people as they may become racist. It is important to condemn racism out of hand for what it is and to condemn those who inflame the fear which produces racism.
We also need to straighten our logic. I listened with great care to what Deputy Mitchell said about little Jerusalem in Dublin. There were many little Irelands in Britain in the 19th century. The distinguished writer, Dr. Frances Finnegan, described the Irish in York in her book Poverty and Prejudice published by Cork University Press. They were just one example of a little Ireland. According to Professor Gearóid Ó Tuathaigh's seminal work on attitudes of the British towards Irish immigration in the 19th century, they were regarded by the Britain media as the carriers of disease and as being overwhelmingly involved in crime, and they were mocked because they spoke the Irish language. When we think of the situation which greeted Irish speaking emigrants to the US in the 19th century, can we now visit the same difficulties and disabilities on people which faced our citizens when they went in floods to north America?
It is useful to think about the way that it happened. Before the Famine there was seasonal migration, with people coming and going from Britain. What happened at the time of the Famine? The literature from Liverpool is very clear on this. Faced with famine, the loss of one million people and another million emigrating, all the people did not flood to the US; they flooded to Liverpool and places like it. They came in droves. To people who had been accepted in places like York and Liverpool came a huge tide of relatives and neighbours who were castigated, regarded as the carriers of disease and made unwelcome.
That is our experience. I do not want to dwell too much on it except to say that there is such a thing as the ethics of memory. As we speak of the Celtic tiger, which is an offensive and ridiculous term, and how we have become so affluent, we could easily invent a past for ourselves which did not include the fact that Ireland, of all the EU countries, was sending its people abroad regularly for a very long time. There were 55,000 emigrants in 1955.
I remember being in England in that period and writing a letter to the Evening Standard— the first letter I wrote to a newspaper — about a racist attack on the Irish in Britain. This is 1998 and the Bill before us simply makes provision, irrespective of what happened in the past, to clean the slate and make a decision on those cases, which have been neglected, badly handled and badly administered, which will create a space in which good and new agreed procedures can be put in place to handle the question of refugees. That proposal will be turned down. Instead, we will continue with only a minor amendment to the existing situation.
I want next to make a statement about the fundamental sovereignty of this House and the Oireachtas. The 1996 Act is the law of the land. It is more than a gross impertinence to establish an interdepartmental committee to work on how to implement the 1996 Act. If the 1996 Act is flawed, the Minister's honourable course of action would be to come into the House and state that he will repeal it because he has no intention of implementing it. If it cannot be implemented, he should table amending legislation and give us, who put in place the Act, the right to change it. Instead, it is being killed by stealth because there is no construction from the Minister's speech other than that he does not intend to implement it. The Democratic Left Bill in the name of Deputy McManus enables the 1996 Act to come into effect and it is outrageous that the Oireachtas can be treated in this manner.
Not a single person who has dealt with migration or immigrants has confidence in the Department. The reason the Bill is being killed by stealth is of course that it is accepted by those who want to help, that the ideal way of administering this particular problem is to establish a body with statutory autonomy separate from the Department which has made such a mess of it for such a very long time.
I could discuss the detail of Deputy McManus' Bill but she has already done so competently. I could refer to the changes that have taken place with regard to the proposals on the existing legislation and those which were introduced in the context of the autonomy of the appeals process. Last evening we were informed in detail that when an official of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform makes a decision the appeal will go to another official. That is outrageous. The autonomy of the decision-making and appeals processes is crucial.
There is a consistent and, though not malevolent, unfortunate confusion of the role of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Because that individual must concentrate in terms of his mandate on the basic fact of refugee rights, he stated, as Deputy Carey correctly indicated, in the 1994 report that anyone interested in refugees knows that one must address the source of the abuse in the home country which would remove the reason for refugees in the first instance. The United Nations High Commissioner defines the term "refugee" several times in the 1994 report and states that refugees can be distinguished from other forms of migrants. However, we are faced in this debate with the absurd situation where the abuse of refugees and the neglect in processing their cases is being used as a hammer against economic refugees. That is simply outrageous.
I could spend the remainder of the evening discussing what should be our appropriate attitude towards economic refugees and who we should allow enter millennial Ireland. God help us. I was moved by Deputy McManus' statement last night about the background to the refugees whose cases have been neglected. These people come from a background of torture, displacement and destroyed lives. Many of them cannot make their cases freely for fear of retribution on the families they left behind. Today I was informed about the case of an Irishman married to an Englishwoman who adopted a two year old baby in Somalia. The baby is in the queue awaiting validation from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform as to whether it can travel with its parents. That kind of neglect is appalling. There is no point in stating that additional staff are being allocated to operate the system. That is nonsense.
In volume 457 of the Dáil debates, which deals with the period October to November 1995, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, in his previous incarnation, referred to Amnesty International and stated:
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 also states that the category of manifestly unfounded applications is open to potential serious abuse and grave injustices. Amnesty International states that it cannot understand why all claims for asylum cannot be dealt with under the ordinary system. It also states that the 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.
The Deputy continued with the following rhetoric:
What the Bill will provide will be dictated by the manner in which we enact it. We should use this opportunity to set up a reasoned and sensitive refugee policy which will be effective and fair. We should view it not in isolation but in the context of Ireland's role in the new Europe and independently as a country which is probably more aware of and sensitive to the needs and problems of refugees.
Would that we were more aware and sensitive of their needs, given that we have the fifth lowest rate of intake in the European Union.
A sense of puzzlement emerged from the Minister's sensational contribution last evening in respect of all the people who want to come to Ireland. It appears there will be another flood of refugees now that people have access to the Internet. One can imagine people across the globe accessing Ireland on the Internet. We will not be able to deal with the flood of refugees that will sweep over us. What patent nonsense. The Minister stated:
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 ..
Does this mean Ireland should have been a colonising power in order for us to now accept refugees? Does it mean there should be conflicts taking place outside our borders before we adopt a responsible policy? The Minister's statement is so morally bankrupt it is appalling.
There was reference to the decision of the previous Government. As a Minister I expressed my views in the same manner as I have during this debate. Perhaps the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform might be informed by his officials about the advice they gave his predecessor, whether the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees was consulted and that what was proposed was at that individual's request. That is irrelevant.
I am willing to state we were wrong provided we are willing to get it right this evening. What we are voting on this evening is Deputy McManus' Bill which will create a space into which proper procedures can be placed. If the Bill is defeated, not only will the legislation fall but the process of undermining the 1996 Act will continue, the interdepartmental committee will have won and the Oireachtas will have lost. More importantly, those who would have been affected by the legislation will have lost. We will be responsible for saying to the people involved with the caring organisations — whom I support and who produced the charter on asylum rights in Ireland — that we recognise their interest but that they do not really understand the problem.
The time has come to restore the integrity of the 1996 Act and enable it to come into being by accepting Deputy McManus' Bill. By making the necessary adjustments to procedures we can then deal properly with the issue of migrancy. It is also time to end the ambivalence and stop the nonsense of encouraging a war among the poor. We have reached a sad stage if we state that housing applicants and the unemployed are in competition with migrants. If that is the case, the answer is to build more houses and use our successful economy to create further opportunities.
We are showing a version of ourselves that is depressing and mean. I imagine there is more decency in ordinary Irish people who, as already stated, have the ethic of memory. Most families in Ireland have relatives who went abroad — half the members of my family did so — and they want to see the emergence of a kind of dignity and solidarity. I do not care who it displeases but it must be stated that there are things we should give away, things we should share and it should cost us something to do so. In this way we can honour decent principles, be faithful to our history and treat people with dignity. It is offensive that instead of responding to the will of the Dáil we have lumped the problem into an administrative morass where it is being badly neglected.
It is absurd to suggest that the Cooney case is the reason the Act cannot be implemented. Where is the evidence for this? Will the Government inform us that it sought an early hearing of that case or lodged a defence? It is a weak straw, a tool, an instrument in the demolition of the 1996 Act. It is time we realised we have obligations under international law. I tried to write notes, but it was so depressing that I stopped. We agreed the United Nations Convention of l951 in November l956 and we became a party to the 1967 Protocol in November 1968. We have had 30 years of comprehensive neglect. It does not matter who is responsible; that is what is at stake. I looked at the Second Stage speeches. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell, made an eloquent speech — I am sure she will be voting with us this evening. In the Official Report, 19 October 1995, Vol. 457. col. 732, she stated:
I welcome also the composition of the Refugee Appeal Board. The original Bill proposed the establishment of a three person tribunal on which State interests were vastly over-represented. The new appeal board allows for the appointment to the five person body of two independent persons.
We will see this evening where Deputy O'Donnell stands. All through that debate there were continual references to the 150th anniversary of the Famine, that we have only just got over apparently, reading what was said in l995. Here now we are tested. I have dealt with the issue of refugees because this Bill will clear a space in which we can begin to have proper and just procedures in place. There is another sense to it in the context of all the quotations we heard in the Minister's speech about the flood that is coming at us all over Europe. The Minister said that it was a matter of concern in Europe. Does this mean that Fortress Europe, that took in Filipino labour in Brussels to work for bureaucrats until cheap Eastern European labour became available and the Filipinos could be sent home, is to be a set of people at the trough within a fortress in which no one is welcome and that we, having sent our people abroad so consistently, instead of standing up to that, are going to give a lead in that thinking? That does not represent me. It does not represent most of those who will vote for this Bill. That is what it is all about. It is not about recrimination. The Minister can stand up and say that we were wrong, and we can accept that, and he can say that he accepts the Second Stage of the Bill and make such changes as he wants to it, but he should not ask us not just to defeat this Bill but to undermine the l996 Bill that we have already passed into law.
If this Bill had come before the House of Commons when Enoch Powell was a member of that House, I am quite certain he would have spoken with vehemence against it. Enoch Powell is now deceased and his policies should be abandoned. In fairness to the people of Britain, they showed tolerance and generosity towards people. That was right and as it should be.
Our attitude towards asylum seekers and refugees saddens me. There are many people across Ireland who are against refugees being allowed in. Many years ago, when the lives of the boat people were at risk, I asked that they be given shelter and refuge in Ireland. I got much correspondence from people congratulating me on the view I expressed, but I got a lot of hate mail as well. There are people who are selfish and greedy and who are not prepared to share. Overall what is right and correct is contained in this Bill and we should be very careful about rejecting it. I congratulate Deputy McManus and her party on presenting this Bill. It is an excellent Bill and worthy of the support of everybody in this House. I am amazed that the Government will not allow it to pass Second Stage at least, and then make changes which I am sure would be met with generosity on this side of the House.
We are speaking about roughly 4,000 asylum seekers, but newspaper reports represent it as hundreds of thousands of people. Given the attitude at official level, I would be tempted to warn those people not to allow themselves to be caught in a trap here. I have no axe to grind with the Independent Newspaper Group, but I was saddened by the front page article in this morning's Irish Independent. It will affect the views of many people across the country who feel they will be caught for extra taxes and they will be prejudiced. It is sad that that should happen. I cannot understand how the Minister arrived at the figures mentioned in that article.
Deputy Jim Higgins outlined the fact that roughly £6,800,000 was allocated by the Eastern Health Board in l997. Refugees are prohibited by law from working and they are entitled to be paid about £70 a week in unemployment assistance. That comes to about £13 million. Taken together, those figures amount to about £22 million. Therefore, the figure in that paper is totally off the wall and I agree with Deputy Michael D. Higgins that the Minister should be asked to justify his figures.
It saddens me that we are talking about money when people's lives are at risk, when people will be put out of Ireland and sent to places where their lives may be placed in jeopardy. That is the harsh reality. We are a country that exported millions of people over the years. Deputy Higgins spoke about the l950s. The majority of the people I went to national school with left Ireland. Their fathers could not get work here and they themselves, when they came to 15 years of age, left Ireland also to get work. They met with intolerance in Britain, but many of them succeeded. I cringe when I see people of a different ethnic origin arriving at Dublin Airport and being taken out of the queue and brought aside to have their credentials checked because of the colour of their skin. It is a sad day for Ireland, and the sooner we show some spark of generosity the better. I believe the vast majority of Irish people believe this Bill is correct.
Let me refer to a point made last night by the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, which seems to have been ignored by speakers in support of the Bill. There is a clear distinction between a genuine refugee and a person who has simply managed to evade immigration controls. International experience is that, at most, 10 per cent of asylum applicants are found to be genuine refugees.
I challenge that figure too.
What is being suggested is an all-encompassing measure under which 90 per cent of people would be treated in a manner that is appropriate to only 10 per cent of people. I will outline some statistics on the number of asylum applications so that Members realise the extent of the problem. In 1992 we received 39 asylum applications compared with 1,179 in 1996. In 1997 there were 3,883 applications. In other words, the number of applications in 1996 was 30 times that of 1992 and the number in 1997 was three and a half times that of 1996. The figure is increasing at a time when the number seeking asylum in other European countries has declined from 674,000 to 225,000. We must ask why this is happening and compare our position with that in other European countries.
The Minister of State is selective in opting for those years.
They are relevant. I am referring to the years from 1992 to date.
She is being very selective.
What about the 1990 figure?
A total of 1,000 applications have been received in 1998.
The Minister of State should be allowed to make her contribution. There is a strict time limit on the debate.
I am referring to the past five or six years.
It is a selective argument.
There is no point talking about the 1970s or the 1980s. We must talk about the relevant years, which are the last five or six.
The comparisons are not relevant.
People claim there are only a few thousand immigrants coming into the country. We must take account of European countries which have larger populations. We are on the edge of Europe.
We will be pushed over the edge.
Will we sink if we take in a few thousand immigrants?
We must also take account of our air and sea services. Immigrants have to pass over many other European countries before they arrive here. None of those points is being taken on board. Members want to interrupt instead of listening to the facts.
The Minister stated that when the right to family unification is taken into account, the number of persons involved could be of the order of 30,000. That is a considerable community of people. It is greater than the Irish travelling community, 60 per cent of the annual birth rate and one and three quarter times the annual natural increase in population.
So what?
These are facts and it is important to outline them.
As Deputies will have a right to contribute later, they should allow the Minister of State to proceed with her contribution.
Some Members praised the Refugee Act and others were very critical of it. Some Members said there was no guaranteed right to an interpreter in all cases in the course of the procedure for dealing with manifestly unfounded claims. Section 8(1)(b) of the Refugee Act, 1996, requires an immigration officer to give certain information to a person "where possible in a language that the person understands". Section 11(8) requires the Refugee Applications Commissioner to give an asylum applicant a statement in writing specifying a range of matters "where possible in a language that he or she understands". A similar formulation is contained in section 10(1) in relation to detained persons. In other words, the Deputies' criticisms mirror exactly what is contained in the Refugee Act.
Members also criticised the provision that, where an applicant destroys identity documents without reasonable cause and in bad faith, his or her claim would be regarded as manifestly unfounded. Section 12 of the Refugee Act defines a manifestly unfounded application as including an application in relation to which the applicant, without reasonable cause and in bad faith, destroyed identity documents etc. In fact, the grounds on which a claim will be determined to be manifestly unfounded, as set out in the letter of 10 December 1997 to UNHCR, are exactly the grounds specified in section 12 of the Refugee Act. Members should be careful about what they say on this important issue. I was pleased to note the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, availed of the opportunity last night to discourage any hostility or racism directed at asylum seekers. I endorse the Minister's remarks in that respect.
I will draw attention to a fatal inconsistency in the Bill. Section 4(1)(b) would exclude from the amnesty persons who had not applied for refugee status prior to 1 January 1998. The effect of this provision is that a great many persons who have come here to avail of social welfare or other economic opportunities, and who had the foresight to apply for refugee status before the said date, would now become the beneficiaries of an amnesty, while other immigrants in exactly the same position, except for the fact that they did not apply for refugee status, would still remain in their present position of being illegal immigrants. No Member referred to illegal immigrants since I came into the House.
I referred to economic refugees.
Section 4(1)(b) is an arbitrary distinction and it is bound to create an incentive which could lead to our asylum applications processing system being overwhelmed again in the future.
For the reasons I outlined and those given by the Minister last night, I urge Members to reject this Bill. It tries to cover 100 per cent of people with something that applies to only 10 per cent of them.
I wish to share time with Deputy McManus.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is difficult to retain a sense of reasonableness in this debate when one listens to the sleeveen speeches from Deputy Callely, who has left the House, and Deputy Carey. Deputy Callely, in particular, used the Minister's speech to justify patently racist remarks made by him some months ago and subsequently repeated in the House. He did not apologise for those appalling remarks either inside or outside the House.
What shocked me most about the speech of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform last night was the utter lack of charity and the absence of any sympathy or understanding for the plight of asylum seekers. It was a speech without a spark of compassion or an ounce of humanity. When I look at the problem of asylum seekers I see it primarily in human terms — the fear facing those who have sought refuge in this country, the uncertainty of their circumstances, their inability to make plans for the future, their status in a legal limbo and the terror of being deported back to the jurisdictions from which they fled. When the Minister — or at least the person who wrote his speech — looks at the problem he clearly sees it through the eyes of a bureaucrat or an accountant. The preoccupation is with figures on a balance sheet, the potential costs, the need for effective administrative procedures and neat solutions to deal with human problems that cannot be neatly pigeon holed. Surely we should have learned at this stage that problems involving human beings cannot be approached in the same way as problems involving surplus production in agriculture. Deputy Lenihan, who has also left the House, referred to the problem of xenophobia in France, Germany and elsewhere because of the presence of immigrants. Why do we allow such feelings to grow? Why do we allow fear to be promoted? Why do we not step in and argue against such fear instead of feeding it, as some of the statements tonight have done?
I am very disappointed the Minister not only said he will not accept this Bill, but he apparently also intends to ignore the resolution passed unanimously by the Dáil on 16 December last which called for the earliest possible implementation of the Refuge Act. In turning down the Bill he is spurning the opportunity to display some humanity on the part of the Government, to demonstrate that this country is prepared to plays its part in seeking a humane solution to a world wide problem, to show that we are prepared to give the same sort of consideration and sympathetic treatment we sought for Irish people who were illegally in other countries.
The Minister said it was important to recognise the clear distinction between a genuine refugee and a person who simply managed to evade immigration controls. The Minister of State repeated that tonight. A person is not an illegal immigrant until such time as his or her application has been processed and he or she is found to be here illegally. It is wrong to try to create a false impression that 90 per cent of immigrants are here illegally.
The Deputy does not want us to process it.
That is scaremongering and the Minister of State should avoid it.
The Deputy will not even allow us to process it.
The Deputy should be allowed to make his contribution.
We are fortunate that the United States authorities did not take a similarly hard line with the estimated 130,000 Irish people who, at the turn of this decade, had evaded immigration controls there. I did not hear the Minister of State when on this side of the House referring to them as illegals.
The Deputy does not have the files.
There should be no interruption from either side.
I am sure there is not a Member who did not express his view that Irish people, illegally in the United States, should be allowed to remain there. Can we show some of the same sympathy and understanding we sought of others? It must be emphasised that the scale of the problem of aslyum seekers in Ireland is relatively small by international standards. Deputy McManus quoted figures and I do not propose to go over them. It is obnoxious of the Minister of State to compare the number of refugees in the State with the size of the traveller community. She is feeding fear and scaremongering. This is a disgrace coming from a Government Minister.
A Deputy
A Minister for Equality.
Last night the Minister said we need fair, rational, evenly tempered discussion, not scaremongering but he went on to use unjustified and exaggerated figures especially in regard to the potential cost of the problems. What a feeling of warmth and satisfaction it must have brought to Áine Ní Chonaill and her colleagues in the immigration control platform when they read the headlines carrying the dire ministerial warning of asylum seekers costing the Irish taxpayer £1 million per week and that an amnesty could cost £250 million per year. Not only was the Minister irresponsible in conjuring up such figures but the media was equally irresponsible in not subjecting those figures to critical examination. We have to look seriously at how the media is treating this question of immigration and asylum seekers. Not only are some Deputies and, since last night, some Ministers feeding scaremongering in this House and outside but the media bears a serious responsibility for the manner in which it is handling this matter and the myths and the false information which is circulating throughout the country. The figures have little basis in fact. The idea that if we give an amnesty to 4,000 people who are already here the figure will grow to 30,000 overnight has no basis in fact. We do not know how many brothers, sisters, wives, uncles or aunts are involved.
That is why we have to process the applications and the Deputy does not want us to do that.
We have no policy on them. The Minister of State is creating a scare and feeding fear and ignorance in a way that is wrong. As a responsible Minister, she is derelict in her duty. Her job should be to lead and to seek to dampen fear and not put out misinformation about this issue.
The Deputy wants to ignore all the facts.
I thank all speakers who contributed to this debate particularly those who understood and supported the Bill. I thank Fine Gael for allowing the Bill to be put to the House and for its considerable support. I thank also those in the Gallery, many of whom we have spoken about, who cannot speak publicly about their situation. They are here to give witness, along with their supporters and people who want to show solidarity.
Deputy Lenihan was correct in saying this is an extraordinary measure. It is an extraordinary measure but it has a great deal more justification than the measures introduced in the US to provide for thousands of Irish illegal emigrants than are here as asylum seekers.
The paucity of the Minister's response was significant but not surprising. I had pointed out the exaggerated claims made by his Department which had proved wrong in relation to numbers. I was surprised the Minister compounded that fault to such an extraordinary degree that we have figures that are plucked out of the air. If the Minister had doubled the figures or halved them, they would be equally meaningless. It is a ‘guesstimate' made out of fear and cowardice. Because he is fearful of dealing with this issue, he is trying to make the public fearful also. He is not succeeding but that is what he is attempting to do and it is shameful. Given that he has made the economic argument he has a duty to back it up with facts. He has not done so. There are no facts to substantiate it. One important fact he has carefully excluded from the equation is that more than 90 per cent of asylum seekers here want to work and are ready to work but are not being given the chance to do so. Most of these people have no experience of the social welfare system here. There are employers who say they cannot get workers and yet a whole group of people want the dignity of work and want to earn their livelihoods. They are not refusing to work but the Minister is refusing to allow them to work. I ask the Minister who is in charge of equality, where is the equality and the civil right which allows people to work, study or travel? That is not the way to treat people who are now part of our community. They belong to us, regardless of what we call them. Many have lived here for the past five or six years and we must not disregard them.
In his contribution yesterday the Minister used the floodgates theory. It is the theory that is used by the weak, the ineffective, and by those who are in the grip of their civil servants. It is the last resort of the bewildered, it is the cry of chicken licken. Chicken licken was always afraid the sky would fall on his head and went around deeply worried about this. The floodgates theory is meaningless. The Refugee Act can come into force if this Bill, as a pragmatic, sensible, practical measure, is put in place. The Refugee Act is a good one and should not be messed around. Enough legislation comes through that is found to be faulty. Let us implement this Act.
(Dublin West): Should Irish immigrants in America have been arrested and sent home?
Will all sides please refrain from interrupting.
I wish to make one final plea. Next week Ministers will fly all over the globe to celebrate St. Patrick's Day with the diaspora. The Taoiseach will present the President of the United States of America with a bowl of shamrock. Would it not be better if the Ministers concerned brought with them the news that we have done the right thing, that we have looked after the dispossessed and the persecuted, as our people were in the past, and that we have provided in this Bill for an amnesty and the implementation of the Refugee Act as our gift on our national day in recognition of all those who came before us, who suffered, were homeless, poor, sick and taken in by strangers?
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 45; Níl, 70.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Belton, Louis.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
- Burke, Ulick.
- Carey, Donal.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Cosgrave, Michael.
- Coveney, Hugh.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Currie, Austin.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Enright, Thomas.
- Farrelly, John.
- Gilmore, Éamon.
- Gormley, John.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Higgins, Joe.
- Higgins, Michael.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McDowell, Derek.
- McGahon, Brendan.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- Penrose, William.
- Perry, John.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Sheehan, Patrick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Wall, Jack.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Blaney, Harry.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Michael.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Daly, Brendan.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Dennehy, John.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Fox, Mildred.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McGennis, Marian.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moffatt, Thomas.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Flynn, Noel.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Seán.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Woods, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett and Rabbitte; Níl, Deputies S. Brennan and Power.
Question declared lost.