The Bill is misnamed – it is not an Immigration Bill, it is a deportation Bill. There is an onus on any Minister introducing a Bill to ensure that its title reflects the content. That may seem like a small point but it is one which indicates a larger problem that exists in respect of the Minister and his Department. From the point of view of accuracy, it is wrong to present this as an Immigration Bill. It is a deportation Bill and its sole purpose is to provide powers, principles and procedures regarding the deportation of non-nationals. Its introduction highlights the fact that we do not have immigration legislation or an immigration policy and that deportations and the situation which obtains in respect of the Aliens Act form only part of a larger, more complex picture.
I will refer first to the issue of deportations. We know that deportations are taking place but we have no information regarding their character or nature. Very occasionally we have been able to obtain an insight, a flash of understanding with regard to what is being done in the name of the Irish people. I have been made aware of a case in my constituency where an individual was deported and his girlfriend travelled to his country of origin to marry him. Fortunately that story had a happy ending but it is probably unique.
In another case, the Costinas family described clearly, through their staunch friends, supporters and neighbours, the experience and ordeal of deportation. In that instance, the family, including the children, were placed in a cell and denied access to toilet facilities. In a modern developed country like Ireland, even the worst criminal is entitled to such a basic human requirement but in this case it was denied. That tells us a great deal about the experience of those who have undergone deportation. However, the larger story surrounding deportation remains and when a Bill of this sort is introduced we should examine it closely.
I compliment my colleague Deputy Howlin for pinpointing an aspect of the Bill which has extremely serious implications for the House. The Minister is reported to have made orders that are in conflict with the decision of the High Court, which has already determined that the Aliens Act is unconstitutional. The motion put forward by Deputy Howlin goes to the core of what we are doing as elected legislators. The Minister is purported to have made orders which are premature and to have made presumptions about decisions of the House in respect of the Bill which he is not entitled to make. The motion reads:
That Dáil Éireann—
—having regard to the fact that the Immigration Bill, 1999, is at present before the House; and
—being of the opinion that matters, the subject of the Aliens (Amendment) (No. 2) Order, 1999 (S.I. 24 of 1999), purportedly made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the 3rd day of February, 1999, ought properly be dealt with in primary legislation;
resolves, pursuant to section 5, subsection 8 of the Aliens Act, 1935, that the said order should be and is hereby annulled.
That motion sets to right an abuse which is occurring at present and which is an offence to every elected Member of the House who has a job to do. That job, in the interests of the Irish people, must be respected and adhered to.
One should not be too surprised by the nature of the Bill when one considers the track record of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform under the direction of the current Minister. Its policy is one of keeping the administration right, regardless of any other issues, and keeping the lid on a matter that is vaguely unpleasant, rather threatening and something to be feared. That attitude is extremely damaging. We appear to have a Department which is philosophically incapable of dealing with issues which form part of modern life such as people seeking asylum and the fact that we have international obligations which we must do our utmost to honour. We claim that we are good Europeans. If we are to be part of the larger international community, we must be able to act as good Europeans when dealing with global issues which are part and parcel of the experience of other European countries. Instead of having that confidence and awareness of moral and political obligations, we have a Minister and a Department which are constantly trying to keep a lid on pressure they perceive will be unbearable if any alternative route is taken.
As an Irish person who was fortunate to grow up in this country, unlike many people of my age and those of previous generations who were obliged to emigrate and find acceptance in other countries, I find that deeply distasteful. Many Members have already referred to the fact that we are denying and negating that aspect of our lives, our history and our culture by taking a hardline and repressive attitude to those seeking refuge and asylum in Ireland.
That attitude became particularly noticeable when the Department began to put a spin on what was said by various esteemed organisations. For example, when representatives of the UNHCR addressed one of the Oireachtas committees and explained in careful detail what their organisation was saying about the Irish approach. They stated that we had an opportunity to create a good model to develop best practice in dealing with asylum seekers. That is what I heard and that is what they said. However, it is interesting that The Irish Times reported that they purportedly informed the Minister, according to the Department's spokesman, that Ireland had a good model in terms of dealing with asylum seekers. In effect, an “Alice in Wonderland” perspective was placed on what the representatives of the UNHCR had actually stated. In one respect the Department's attitude is laughable but in another it is deadly serious and it must be challenged at every opportunity.
That kind of spin cannot be put on what we are doing to asylum seekers, particularly when one considers the positive approach the Italian Government has adopted in this area or when one looks at what has happened in other European countries. Some of these countries do not have the comfort of an economic boom, some have increasingly high levels of unemployment and some contain organised political groups that represent a new manifestation of a deep seated racism which dates back generations, which is disturbing and which is undermining the democratic system. They have, however, adopted an approach that is in tune with the times. With the comforts of economic growth and falling unemployment levels, we have not made that leap.
The interdepartmental committee on non-Irish nationals established in 1994 prepared the ground for the Refugee Act, 1996. It was chaired by a Mr. S. Magner of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. In its presentation on what needed to be done to update our legislation it stated, "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". It proposed the establishment of a tribunal "which would be both independent and specialised and would be solely and exclusively responsible for considering applications for refugee status and the making of recommendations on these applications".
Great credit is due to the Department for chairing a committee which expressed this enlightened view which was at the core of the Refugee Bill which was supported by all parties in the House. It does not often happen that there is consensus on such a difficult issue. It will always be a difficult issue. It is wrong to presume that there will not be conflicts. Just over one year ago there was all-party consensus on an anti-racism motion which called for full implementation of the Act. It has still not been implemented. It is in limbo. The issue should be dealt with in a mature, responsible and progressive way.
On 19 October 1995 the Minister, then in opposition, 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. 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.
Since taking office the Minister has set aside the important parts of the Act and introduced a fast track procedure.
The issue of the right to work which I have been promoting for a long time has been raised. I read the story in the Irish Independent today with great interest. When Deputy Quinn raised the issue with the Taoiseach it was clear the story was much sharper—