More than two years ago the Refugee Act was passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas with all-party support. The then justice spokesperson for Fianna Fáil, Deputy O'Donoghue, said, it must be said that Ireland has remained in the Middle Ages with regard to the granting of asylum and the declaration of refugee status to people exiled from their countries of origin out of fear of persecution or discrimination of one form or another. He said we must also face the fact that the smug idea that the Irish are incapable of racist bias has been shored up by hugely prohibitive red tape in the processing of applications for refugee status here. He also said that persons displaced from their country of origin have often become subjects of an even more obstructive and debilitating syndrome while waiting in a haze of indecision as the powers that be decide whether to grant them refugee status. That was the sort of high sounding and principled verbiage we had come to expect from the Fianna Fáil spokesperson in Opposition. On entry into office no one could accuse the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, of creating a huge haze of indecision. His first decisive act was to announce that the new Refugee Act, which he had described as enlightened and the provisions of which would be of considerable assistance to asylum seekers and refugees, would not be brought into force. His second decisive act was to announce that asylum seekers, whose applications had been turned down in the absence of fair and independent statutory procedures, would be deported from this State. There was no indecision about that. The Refugee Act, which had all-party support in this House and was regarded as necessary legislation for Ireland in the circumstances in which we found ourselves, was not to be implemented; instead the Minister would make the decisions and those, whom he found unworthy to stay in the country for whatever reason and in the absence of any fair and statutory procedures, would be deported forthwith. The stated reason for not bringing the Act into effect was that the number of asylum seekers was so great that the newly created Office of Refugee Commissioner could not cope. His patently absurd solution to that problem was to retain the decision-making process in the very organisation which had created the backlog in the first place, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
To implement his deportation policy, the Minister resorted to the Aliens Act, 1935, emergency legislation introduced in the British Parliament immediately prior to the last war. It has long since been repealed and replaced in the United Kingdom, but its stark and draconian provisions have been considered by successive Irish Governments to be a more than adequate substitute for an open and transparent system of Irish law grounded on a thought out and publicly known immigration policy that would be the norm in any other developed state.
Despite its title, this is not an immigration Bill. The Minister's attitude last night almost conceded that. It would not be recognised as an immigration Bill in any civilised country. Paragraph one of the explanatory memorandum makes crystal clear that its sole purpose is to provide powers, principles and procedures regarding the deportation of non-nationals. We do not have and never have had any clear policy on the entitlement of non-nationals to be admitted to this State.
We will not have an immigration policy if this legislative measure is enacted by the Houses of the Oireachtas. Should we legitimately or otherwise treat citizens of certain states more favourably than others? That question would normally be asked in any immigration regime. Should we decide what parts of the world should be looked on as favoured nations for their citizens to be afforded a special welcome to this country? Should we introduce an annual quota, as is the norm in many countries, given that Ireland has become prosperous and there is clear evidence that people want to live here? Should we open our borders in a way that can be decided by open debate, establish criteria and a quota system or introduce a points system based on educational criteria? Should we not assess skills shortages in the economy and identify criteria, as many employers are demanding and requiring, to welcome non-nationals with those skills to our country to continue to fuel that economy? What is our attitude to family reunion, the maintenance of extended families or the maintenance by workers of their dependants?
These are the normal questions that would be posed and the normal criteria that would be included in a civilised immigration policy which could be openly debated by and decided on by the House and then applied, in an open and transparent way, to any non-national who sought to work or reside in this State. What we have instead is what purports to be an Immigration Bill, but which should be properly titled a "Deportation Bill". The title of the Bill is a complete misnomer; it is an emergency Bill designed to replace an emergency Act which was struck down by the courts.
We are often complacent about issues of this nature and close our eyes to need. There are social consequences and international responsibilities which result from a thriving economy. The Government must face those responsibilities, particularly – I am sorry he is not present – the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who must live up to the high phrases and principles he enunciated when the Refugee Act, which languishes unimplemented, was enacted with the consent of all parties some years ago.
The Bill will be seen by most people as applying to asylum seekers, largely because there is little proper recognition of the other forms of immigration which take place or the conditions which are imposed on non-nationals who lawfully enter the State. However, it is just as capable of applying to surgeons who work in major hospitals as to non-skilled people who arrive here to seek employment. Nonetheless, it is because of the recent increase in asylum applications that the lack of immigration policy and law has become more apparent as has the inevitability that the woeful inadequacies of the Aliens Act, 1935, would eventually be exposed.
Everyone has anecdotal evidence relating to this issue. While travelling abroad I met one of our trade representatives – for his sake I will not name him or the country in which he is based – who wanted to bring a non-national, an Oriental, to Ireland. The individual in question is one of the richest business people in the Orient and he intended to site a company in Scotland, but he was persuaded by our trade representative to visit Ireland. It took the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform so long to organise the paperwork necessary to allow him to visit the country that he never arrived and the potential job investment he might have brought was never realised. Bluntly put, had he been an American or a Canadian he would have had no difficulty in obtaining access to this country. There are major questions to be asked about our attitude to the admittance of non-nationals even for visits, not to mention our introducing the type of progressive immigration policy which would be the norm required in any civilised society.
The emergency with which the Bill deals arose from the Laurentiu v. Minister for Justice case which was heard on 22 January 1999. In that case, the High Court struck down section 5(1)(e) of the Aliens Act, 1935, which authorised the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform by order to make provision for the deportation and exclusion of “aliens”, either individually or by reference to membership of a particular class. The court held that this bare single sentence contained no statement of principle or policy by the Oireachtas to govern the Minister's power. Effectively, he was being empowered to make it up as he went along and this amounted to an unconstitutional delegation of the legislative power of the State to a member of the Government. We are the legislature, we determine the criteria and we set the law. That is why we have such a responsibility in that regard and why it is depressingly sad to see immigration legislation take the form of the Bill before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The court's decision is not surprising and had been predicted by legal practitioners dealing with asylum applications for some time.
The Bill purports to cure the defect in the Aliens Act by ostensibly setting out the principles according to which a deportation order could be exercised. However, it fails to do so and retains some of the most offensive features of the 1935 Act. It sets out in section 3 a list of those capable of being deported; convicted criminals, persons to whom certain EU regulations apply and those who have their asylum applications transferred to another country under the Dublin Convention. Also included, under section 3(2)(g), are persons who have been refused by the Minister "leave to land". This provision fails to recognise that there is not, in the Aliens Act or the Bill, any statement of principle or policy governing the Minister's power to refuse leave to land. It is clear from the criteria set out in the High Court judgment that this section is vulnerable to the same legal attack as happened in the January case.
The Bill sets out a principle at paragraph (i) of the section that it should apply to any non-national whose deportation would, in the Minister's opinion, be "conducive to the common good". Does the Minister really believe this is a sufficient statement of principle of policy or that it will satisfy the constitutional criteria that policy is determined by the Oireachtas? Does he believe he has the right to decide that an individual's exclusion from the State would be conducive to the common good? There are a number of people, some of them former Ministers, who, under those criteria, would be excluded permanently from the State. The Minister is the sole arbiter of the common good and not only asylum seekers but all immigrants in the State, whether lawfully or unlawfully present, remain here at his sole discretion.
There are a number of glaring and fundamental gaps and defects in the Bill. It does not specify that a deportation order should not be made against an asylum seeker whose case has not yet been completed or considered. There is no reference to legal advice being made available to those seeking to make representations to the Minister against deportation within the 14 days available to them. If legal advice was given to an asylum seeker for the purpose of presenting his or her case for refugee status, would that also extend to the giving of advice on a proposed deportation order which might have been served in the interim?
Under section 3, notice of a deportation order, once the Minister has made his decision on any representations, is to be served on an individual and, under subsection (9)(a), shall require him to present himself at such date, time and place as is specified for the purpose of being deported from the State. A minimum period is not specified between the time the notice is served and the time the deportee must present himself for deportation. It appears that notice could be served in the evening requiring the deportee to present himself for deportation the following morning. This is important given that section 5 empowers an immigration officer or a garda who reasonably suspects that a person against whom a deportation has been made has failed to comply with the provision of an order or requirement of a notice of an order, to arrest that person without warrant. The person so arrested may then be placed immediately on a ship, train or aircraft about to leave the State and shall be deemed to be in lawful custody until that mode of transport has left.
It could happen, therefore, that a person may be served with a notice to present himself for deportation in an evening. If he is not at the specified location he could be arrested, lawfully taken into custody and lawfully put on an aircraft and transported out of the State. Such a procedure would effectively deprive the deportee of the possibility of resorting to the courts to challenge the legality of what has been done. A similar provision relating to extradition was struck down by the Supreme Court in The State (Quinn) v. Ryan (1965) IR 70. To save this provision from, at the very least, constitutional challenge it must be amended to provide that a person shall not be deported following service of a deportation order without affording him a reasonable opportunity to exercise his right of access to the courts.
The proposal to validate orders which are invalid in law is unacceptable to the Labour Party. The content of all aliens' orders which implement policy must be incorporated into the substantive provisions of the Bill. Section 2 is an unacceptable whitewash of illegality and deprives this House of the power to amend or review those provisions.
I wish to raise with the Minister a very serious allegation made in an issue of Magill magazine under the heading “A Spin too Far”. The article referred to a statement issued on the Minister's behalf on 5 December claiming that the existing refugee application process had been endorsed by the UNHCR who had described it as a model. The article goes on to claim that this was a misquotation of what had been said by the High Commissioner's officials before the Dáil committee and that what in fact had been said was that if certain other matters were introduced and if certain promised measures were implemented then the Irish process could be a model for other countries. The article claims that the Minister's statement had almost led to a full blown row between the Minister and the UNHCR and that its spokeswoman in London remarked that its statements are often taken out of context and a formal retraction of the Minister's incorrect quotation may have been requested. I call on the Minister to tell the House if there is any substance in the Magill article and whether he will retract those reported remarks.
There is another issue which goes to the heart of the State's seriousness in implementing international law. The State is obliged by Article 13 of the UN International Convention on Civil and Political Rights to afford certain basic procedural guarantees against deportation. We are fully bound by this provision in international law. The same duty is imposed by Protocol 7 to the European Convention which we signed and which the White Paper on Foreign Policy committed us to ratifying. I demand that the Minister states unequivocally whether the Attorney General has confirmed that the Bill complies with this Article and Protocol. He should also indicate when the Protocol will be ratified. If he fails to provide that information the House will draw the necessary conclusions, which could have serious consequences for our international obligations.
It is right and necessary to repeat some basic facts relating to the supposed refugee crisis in Ireland and the need for prompt and decisive action. We are not facing a tidal wave of asylum seekers as some have suggested. Some have fed on this, indeed one Government backbencher makes it a platform on which to develop his own political career. It is a dangerous strategy.
I will not repeat the figures detailing the numbers coming into the country which Deputy Jim Higgins presented to the House last night. It is clear that the notion of a great tide of immigrants is not sustainable. Figures published in The Irish Times yesterday show that even at the record levels reached in 1998 the number of 4,500 asylum seekers is modest. It compares with the 60,000 applicants in the UK and almost 100,000 in Germany. Even on a per capita basis Ireland ranks only about eighth in the EU. It is a new phenomenon for us and we do not have a great base on which it is built.
Given our troubled history in terms of emigration and the millions of Irish people who have fled this country largely for economic reasons to better themselves and look after their families, surely we especially should be expected to show some humanity to those who now seek refuge here? It is worth reminding the House that as recently as the turn of the decade there were approximately 100,000 illegals in the US. At that time repeated calls were made across party lines to the US authorities to treat our citizens in the US as sympathetically as possible. We exhorted special visas and lobbied consistently to ensure they would not be deported and be subject to exclusion from the US. Knowing County Kerry as I do there was probably more than one call from the office of the Minister dealing with constituents who were undocumented there. In general the US responded positively and well. Consider the social and economic problems that would have been created for this country had the US authorities applied the same hardline approach to Irish illegals as the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is now applying to illegals in Ireland.
The approach of the Department appears to be mechanistic. It appears that asylum seekers are to be treated as figures in a ledger and not as human beings. They are fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. The most poignant demonstration of that were the television pictures shown across the world of queues of people out side the Department seeking interviews with officials. There would have been an outcry if Irish citizens in any part of the world were treated in that fashion. One could imagine the high dudgeon which would have been a feature of this House and how we would have regarded the authorities which treated Irish men and women in that way.
Asylum seekers are assessed only in terms of their potential cost to the country; their potential contribution is not put on the weighing scales. The newspapers are full of the social welfare and housing costs. We have taken deliberate measures to ensure that such costs are maximised by refusing to allow asylum seekers to have employment here while their situation is evaluated and their right of permanent residence is determined.
The Minister has departed totally from the humane and considerate approach he advocated in Opposition. High principles were spouted and recorded in his contribution to the Refugee Act but, unfortunately, he has now swallowed the Department's line. It is time to rethink our national policy on asylum seekers, which seems to involve the deportation of the maximum numbers possible, regardless of the human consequences of those decisions. As a country with exceptional levels of economic growth and a recognisable and significant labour shortage in some sectors, it should be possible to have a sympathetic and humane policy for dealing with the numbers of people from abroad who, for whatever reason, seek asylum on our shores.
This Bill is not an immigration Bill. It behoves the Minister to acknowledge the fact that a statement of immigration policy will be made by the Government, debated by this House and enshrined in a civilised law that properly mirrors a civilised people who want to facilitate non-nationals to reside among us in a structured and ordered way and who are willing to assimilate people from other countries into our society. It is time we moved beyond the closed door and closed eye attitude which has been the hallmark of official Irish policy to immigration and refugee issues and to, once and for all, bring ourselves into the realm of a civilised modern democracy.