Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Nov 1999

Vol. 511 No. 4

Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill, 1999: Second Stage.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. O'Donoghue)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Today we are discussing an important proposal which goes to the heart of our right to exercise control over immigration to our country and which seeks to protect against abuse the sanctuary which we can offer those genuinely in need of it. All states have a need for effective laws dealing with the entry, residence and departure of non-nationals in the interests of the well-being of society. Last evening, I gave the House a comprehensive account of Government policy on the exercise of these laws. Some Deputies disagreed with our approach, others supported it. All engaged, as is our right and responsibility, in a constructive debate of national importance because we all have the same aim, to ensure we have an immigration policy which is fair and objective.

No Member of this House would countenance a suggestion that others, who have no lawful authority, answerability or concern for the good of anyone or anything except themselves and their wallets, be allowed to disregard our laws and attempt to exercise any measure of control in this important area. Unfortunately, we are now aware that internationally-organised criminal entities have discovered the profit potential in exploiting vulnerable non-nationals by flouting immigration controls here and abroad with absolutely no regard for the safety or well-being of their victims. As bad as the flouting of our immigration controls is, there are still further grounds for concern. These traffickers can be compared to slave traders of old, subjecting those at their mercy to extortion, intimidation and other abuse which does not cease after their victims reach our shores but may continue as debts are paid off or for so long as they can otherwise use their power to control these unfortunate people.

We must also be concerned with the type of illicit organisation which tends to have links to other networks of groups engaged in organised crime such as drug trafficking. That our systems and our asylum framework can indirectly fund such trafficking is clearly unacceptable. Our legislative framework is deficient at present because it contains insufficient power to enable the State deal with these traffickers.

There can be little doubt – and there is recognition throughout Europe and beyond – that those whose trade is the illicit movement of men, women and children across national boundaries have perceived this deficiency in our law as a weakness to be exploited. The Bill is intended to address that deficiency by criminalising the activity of these traffickers and providing ancillary and necessary powers. The House will be aware that this weakness is being exploited and that people are being continually smuggled into the State. We also know that taxis and private vehicles are daily travelling from Northern Ireland and discharging their illegal passengers in Dublin. It is the duty of the Government and our responsibility as parliamentarians to tackle this criminal trade in human cargo and that is the purpose of the Bill.

For many years we have been a party to the Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees and we have in place procedures to examine asylum applications which have been recognised by our courts. In addition, the Refugee Act, 1996, as amended by the Immigration Act, 1999, sets out a comprehensive framework whereby a person can make an application for asylum and have that application processed in a fair and objective way. The Refugee Act as amended is not yet fully in force but I hope to be in a position to bring it into effect at an early date. I refer to these procedures to make it clear and reiterate that we have in place a procedure whereby an asylum applicant can make an application for asylum at the first safe opportunity, which in our State should of course be at the point of entry to the country. Yet our statistics show that 82% of asylum applications are made inland and not at our ports. One might expect a percentage of applications to be made inland by terrified people fleeing persecution – that is why our procedures and legislation make inland applications possible. However, given that the bulk of applications are made inland it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that applicants are being smuggled across our borders in an organised, clandestine way by unscrupulous people.

The House will be aware that the level of asylum applications has been increasing very significantly. In 1995 we received 424 applications. By 1998 this had risen more than tenfold to 4,626. At the end of October this year we had received 5,497 applications. The numbers applying monthly during 1999 are indicative of this spiral. We had 234 applications in January, but this figure jumped dramatically to more than 1,000 in October. This sort of increase does not occur by accident and is a further indication of the involvement of commercial traffickers.

The problem we are discussing is not unique to Ireland. However, most other jurisdictions, including most of our EU partners, have legislation of the type provided for in the Bill, and the lack of such provisions in our law makes Ireland more attractive to traffickers. The need for legislation of this type was one of recommendations in the report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Immigration, Asylum and Related Issues whose recommendations were accepted by the Government in February last year.

It is also worth mentioning that the link between traffickers and organised crime has been recognised at UN level and work is now progressing on the negotiation of protocols to the draft UN convention on organised crime which will deal with smuggling and trafficking in human beings.

Most importantly, the Heads of State or Government of the European Union, at the European Council meeting at Tampere, Finland, on 15 and 16 October last, addressed the question of trafficking in human beings. At that meeting, the European Council stated its determination to tackle illegal immigration at its source, especially by combating those who engage in trafficking and the economic exploitation of migrants. The Council urged adoption of legislation providing for sanctions against this serious crime. On the basis of a proposal by the Commission it invited the Council of Ministers to adopt legislation to this effect by the end of 2000. Furthermore, the European Council urged member states, together with Europol, to direct their efforts to detecting and dismantling the criminal networks involved.

We can, therefore, anticipate being in a position in the fairly near future to examine the Bill when enacted and check its conformity with EU legislation which will prescribe a common approach to the criminalisation of trafficking in human beings. That is not an argument for doing nothing now because we clearly need the Bill to respond to the evil of trafficking which is affecting us on a daily basis.

I will strongly stress a very important aspect of this Bill, namely, that it is aimed at traffickers and not at people who are being trafficked. Traffickers' cargo may be vulnerable people who as often as not will have had to pay exorbitant sums to the traffickers in return for a service probably based on lies and half truths and total disregard for their safety and well being. I do not suggest that every individual who seeks to by-pass our immigration controls or abuse our hospitality is the innocent victim of an international crime figure. As I have already said, the Bill contains no measures to penalise the immigrant, whatever his or her motives or whether he or she is a genuine refugee. It is aimed solely at those who traffic in illegal immigrants. It will do so by making it an offence in relation for any person to organise or knowingly facilitate the entry into the State of a person whom he or she knows or has reasonable cause to believe to be an illegal immigrant. On conviction on indictment a person will be liable to an unlimited fine or up to ten years imprisonment or both should the court consider it appropriate.

There has been concern in some quarters that the wording used in the Bill is too broad and that it will encompass the activities of bona fide organisations which assist asylum seekers. Such activity is not the focus of the Bill. My intention is to deal with commercial trafficking in people. I am prepared, therefore, to listen sympathetically to what Deputies have to say on this point and to consider the matter further with a view to asking the parliamentary draftsman to re-examine the issue in the context of the definition of illegal immigrant in section 1. If redrafting is necessary I will bring forward an amendment on Committee Stage.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Bill contains an important disincentive to those who might allow their vehicles to be used for the purposes of trafficking in illegal immigrants. A court may, in circumstances defined in the Bill, order the forfeiture of the means of transport used for trafficking in illegal immigrants. I am also considering whether, because of the nature of international trafficking in people, it should be possible for a court to order the detention of vehicles where proceedings are contemplated which could lead to forfeiture. If necessary I will bring forward an amendment on Committee Stage.

These are the key provisions of the Bill. On possible sanctions on carriers, whether airlines or ferries I am considering whether it is necessary to impose responsibility on carriers to ensure that they bring to the State only those passengers who are legally entitled to come here and to provide for sanctions to punish carriers who fail to live up to this responsibility. An important consideration in this respect is the need to ensure that whatever system is envisaged takes into account the possibility for genuine refugees to continue to have access to our shores. I am consulting the Attorney General about the details of a possible legislative approach to be taken to this matter and if necessary I will bring forward the necessary provisions for inclusion in the Bill on Committee Stage.

In discussing the Bill I do not intend turning the debate into a discussion on our immigration and asylum policy. I have already made my position and the position of the Government clear on that issue, in particular in the context of the debate we had in the House last night and which will resume later this evening. The measures I propose in the Bill are but one aspect of an overall strategy the Government has adopted. This strategy leans heavily towards ensuring that our obligations under national and international law in relation to asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are fully met. However, it must also be underpinned by measures such as this to ensure our systems are not abused.

The principal purpose of the Bill is to create an offence of trafficking in illegal immigrants and to provide a framework by which those engaging in the trafficking of illegal immigrants can be dealt with under the law.

Section 1 is a standard provision for necessary definitions. An illegal immigrant is defined as a non-national who enters, seeks to enter or has entered the State unlawfully. In general, there are three main categories of non-nationals who enter the State illegally. The first is persons from a place other than the UK or Northern Ireland who do not present themselves to an immigration officer for leave to land.

Section 1 is a standard provision providing for necessary definitions. In particular, "illegal immigrant" is defined as a non-national who enters, seeks to enter or has entered the State unlawfully. In general, there are three main categories of non-nationals who enter the State illegally. The first are persons from a place other than the UK or Northern Ireland who do not present themselves to an immigration officer for leave to land. The second are persons coming from the UK or Northern Ireland who are not citizens of states which are exempt from visa requirements and who do not possess the required visas. The third category are those people who may be the subject of a deportation or exclusion order.

Apart from the definition of illegal immigrant, section 2 is the central section of the Bill. Subsection (1) creates an offence of trafficking in illegal immigrants by providing that any person who organises or knowingly facilitates the entry into the State of a person whom he or she knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, to be an illegal entrant shall be guilty of an offence. On summary conviction, a person may be liable to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both. The penalty on conviction on indictment is an unlimited fine or imprisonment for up to ten years or both.

I have already acknowledged the concern that this wording will encompass the activities of bona fide organisations which assist asylum seekers. While it is not unreasonable to expect that bona fide organisations would comply with the law, such activity is not the focus of the Bill. I am prepared to consider this issue further with a view to asking the parliamentary draftsman to re-examine this provision in conjunction with the definition of illegal immigrant in section 1 to see whether the concerns expressed merit a redrafting of the wording used. If this is the case, I will introduce an appropriate amendment or amendments on Committee Stage. Subsection (2) provides that the offence will apply to acts done or omissions made outside, as well as to acts done or omissions made inside, the State.

Section 3 provides in certain circumstances for the forfeiture of ship, aircraft or other vehicle used in illegal trafficking and is based on similar provisions contained elsewhere, for example, in the Criminal Justice Act, 1994. Provisions are included to safeguard the interests of the owners of the vehicles and of other persons who have an interest in the property to be forfeited. I am concerned, however, that the nature of international trafficking is such that it may be necessary to provide for the possibility to detain vehicles to ensure they are in fact available for forfeiture should a court decide to so order. I am examining the possibility of providing accordingly, and it may, therefore, be necessary to bring forward an appropriate amendment on Committee Stage.

Section 4 is a standard provision and provides that the powers of the Garda to search vehicles and persons in them, contained in section 8 of the Criminal Law Act, 1976, will apply to an offence under section 2. Section 5, entry, search and seizures, provides that a District Court judge may issue a warrant for the search of a place, or any person found at the place, where, following sworn information of a garda not below the rank of sergeant, the judge is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that evidence of or relating to an offence under section 2 is to be found at the place.

Section 6 amends the Schedule to the Bail Act so that the offence of immigrant trafficking will be covered by the provisions of the Act. Section 7, offences by bodies corporate, is a standard provision which enables persons working in a body corporate as well as the body corporate itself to be proceeded against for an offence under the Act. Section 8, expenses, and section 9, short title and commencement, are standard provisions.

This Bill is aimed at racketeers, not at vulnerable illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. If we wish to ensure the asylum process is fully functioning and available to those who need it, we must protect it against those who would abuse it. I look forward to hearing the views of Deputies on this Bill and I assure them I will take full account of all their contributions. I thank Deputies in anticipation for their co-operation in commending the Bill to the House.

Mr. Higgins

(Mayo): I have considerable difficulty with this Bill. I have problems with it in terms of its content and I will deal with these later. I also have problems with it because it is another indication of the Government's incoherent approach to the refugee and asylum issue. It is another example of the ad hoc approach of the Minister for Justice and his Fianna Fáil colleagues in Government. It is another example of a Government developing a policy in bits and pieces, like bits of disjointed Lego, rather than in a coherent, comprehensive or structured fashion.

It is obvious we have no clearly thought out immigration and asylum-refugee policy and that the Government is continually evolving policy and making it up as it goes along. The result is that whatever policy is in place is not being properly managed. The queues are getting longer, admittedly because more people are seeking asylum here, but also because the system is not working efficiently. There is no excuse for delays of several years from the time an application is made for asylum and the time a decision is made. However, this is the experience in the majority of cases.

The confusion is added to by the fact that the Government has been at sixes and sevens as to where it stands on some of the core policy issues. We have had a long running tug of war between the Progressive Democrats members of the Government, especially between the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, and the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell, on the one hand, and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, on the other, regarding the vexed issue of work permits for asylum seekers. The latter doggedly and publicly held the line that work permits would not be granted to asylum seekers because they would create a "pull" factor which would lead, in his words, to our being "swamped" with applications.

His position was publicly challenged by both the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Minister of State. Eventually, the Progressive Democrats position prevailed and work permits were, in theory, to be made available. The reality, however, is that to date a mere 15 permits, although it may be 20 or 30, out of 2,000 applications have been granted, despite shops, restaurants and building sites the length and breadth of the country frantically advertising for staff, IBEC and other employer organisations asking that work permits be made available to fill the skilled vacuum and to satisfy the need to keep the economic wheels turning, and the fact that ICTU supports the principle of granting work permits.

The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, however, must take her share of the blame. She stands indicted in this area. It is her Department which is responsible for the administration of work permits. Having beaten the political drum so loudly and incessantly for so long, one must ask the reason she has failed to deliver on what should be a fairly straightforward procedure to perform. The Minister seems to have a problem reconciling her vision and rhetoric with reality.

At the beginning of this year, Government policy was again thrown into disarray when the Aliens Act, 1935, was found to be unconstitutional by virtue of the fact that it did not set down specific criteria for categories of persons to be deported. The Government reaction was another ad hoc response. The Immigration Bill, 1999, as the Opposition pointed out at the time, was not a measure dealing with immigration policy or regulating the inward flow of migrants, but a deportation Bill to exclude and banish people from the country. We voted against the Bill on Second Stage for that reason and because no statutory asylum policy was in place. Thankfully on Committee Stage, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform did a U-turn and introduced a set of substantial amendments to put in place a proper administrative structure for the processing of asylum applications and for the hearing of appeals. The problem now, however, is that the system is not working, it has ground to a halt and hence the queues.

On Monday and Tuesday of the week before last we had the shameful spectacle of the doors of the Refugee Applications Centre on Lower Mount Street firmly locked with hundreds of applicants – some of whom had queued from 5.00 a.m., had returned for a third time or were pregnant – being turned away because there was yet another systems failure. The Eastern Health Board officials could not cope. On Sunday morning the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, launched a stinging attack on the asylum policy of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. She correctly characterised it as a "doom laden, ad hoc policy”. She expressed dismay at scenes of asylum seekers being denied access to State services and sleeping rough. According to the Minister of State, instead of embracing the challenge, the Government was treating asylum as a burden. This attitude would only foment public resentment and fear. In a further direct criticism of the Minister she said, “If you have the wrong credo or mindset, your policies will be flawed. We need a bit of intellectual investment here”. I agree with her. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, rightly complained that the refugee agency, under the auspices of her Department, had the skills and knowledge to deal with the situation but was totally excluded from dealing with asylum seekers.

Deputy O'Donnell went on to assert that the Progressive Democrats are in the process of urgently drawing up their own policy on immigration, asylum and related matters and would be bringing this policy to Cabinet shortly. She said she was embarrassed and appalled at what was going on in Mount Street and would not preside over the chaos surrounding the treatment of asylum seekers. The Progressive Democrats would insist that this administrative shambles be brought to an end. She said that the situation was disgraceful. The Progressive Democrats would insist that a two channel approach be adopted to deal with asylum and immigration, one for economic migrants and one for asylum seekers.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform's response on television on Sunday evening promised new tough legislation and a major crackdown on illegal trafficking of immigrants. He was quite obviously trying to convey the impression that this was a new response to the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell's broadside. In fact, he was referring to the Bill before the House today, the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill, 1999, which was published not on the Saturday, Sunday or following Monday but on 17 June last. On the Monday, the Minister responded further to the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell's damning indictment of his policy and performance. He told the Monday morning newspapers that he would not be deflected or, as the Liverpool song says "we shall not be moved".

The net outcome is that the chaos continues. The Government is only now coming to a realisation that it is bad public and humanitarian policy to concentrate so many asylum seekers in one area of the country. Surely, it would be far preferable to have more than one asylum applications office. Why not locate one, as has been promised in the past, in Wexford or in the south-east which must be a major point of entry for many of those making applications? The Government must put in place a policy of dispersal in order to lighten the burden on the Eastern Health Board in addition to allowing for far greater ease of accommodation, assimilation and integration.

We must put into perspective the potential consequences of the legislation we are introducing. The Minister confirmed our worst fears by saying he would try to make this legislation even tougher by introducing amendments to oblige ships, aircraft carriers and others in the transport business to check out the bona fides of their passengers. Had the US decided to invoke the full rigours of the measures the Minister is now promising to introduce, dozens of Aer Lingus planes which ferried thousands of young undocumented Irish to the United States in the 1980s and early 1990s would have been impounded and forfeited and Aer Lingus personnel could have been fined up to £1,500 or received up to 12 months in prison for knowingly facilitating the passage of these people. Is the Minister seriously saying that would have been justified? The so-called "illegal", young, educated, highly motivated Irish people who went to the US were not content to sit at home unemployed, signing on at the local labour exchange and languishing on the dole. They had the initiative to seek their fortunes in the US and elsewhere. They had holiday visas but did not have any work permits or green cards. They came from honest decent hard-working families with a strong work ethic and went to the US and elsewhere with the clear intention of staying there and working. They made false declarations to US immigration officials either at Shannon or at their point of entry and were economic refugees in every sense of the word.

Those young Irish people were not fleeing from a country of oppression. While Ireland had economic and unemployment problems, they would not have ranked anywhere near the economic, let alone social, conditions which currently prevail in the countries from which the vast majority of people who joined the queue of asylum seekers in Mount Street this morning came. The vast majority of people who left this country were economic migrants who emigrated to other countries to use their skills and educational qualifications in the hope of making a decent, honest living. There is a vast difference between the economic and social conditions which prevailed in Ireland and those which prevail in the home countries of the people queuing in Mount Street this morning.

What is the essential difference, if any, between an economic refugee from Nigeria or Russia waiting in the queue in Mount Street as we speak and an "illegal alien", as the United States classified an undocumented young person from County Kerry? If there is a difference, I ask the Minister to please spell it out.

Many Members of this House, myself included, assisted young Irish people from our constituencies to make contacts in the US, for example, contacts with Mayo families or Mayo-born employers in New York, Boston and elsewhere. We did so in order to try to set them up in jobs even though we knew that, officially, they were illegal in the strict sense of the word, but they desperately needed jobs. Under this legislation, I and many others should be in jail for, as the Bill puts it, "knowingly facilitating" such people. In this House, which is today discussing punitive sanctions for those who assist in the trafficking of illegal immigrants, we have passed resolutions requesting, indeed begging, the Irish-American political powerbrokers to make a special case for our young economic refugees as if we were some kind of special species, deserving of special consideration over and above the rest of humanity. High powered political delegations lobbied Ted Kennedy, Tip O'Neill, Daniel Moynihan, Bruce Morrison, the Careys and others. The results are there to be seen. Special measures were adopted by Congress to bring Donnelly and Morrison visas onstream.

We need to get our act together. We need an immigration policy as distinct from an asylum policy. We must create a system which will allow non-EU economic migrants to apply through a process which will determine whether their skills and qualifications are needed here. We must amend our legislation or introduce new legislation to facilitate such a measure and to remove the legal obstacles and the administrative red tape which currently results in the rejection of such applications. It is quite obvious that the Minister and his Department seem overwhelmed and incapable of seeing that such a clear distinction should be made. For that reason, the Minister might usefully consider referring the matter to the NESC and request it, in conjunction with Forfás and other agencies which can assess the economy's skill needs now and for the future, to make recommendations on immigration policy within a specified timeframe.

Human trafficking is a problem which must be tackled. One hates to see innocent people ripped off and exploited, but it is necessary to make an explicit distinction between those who exploit refugees for commercial purposes and those who are genuinely concerned with refugees and their welfare. Under this legislation, Oscar Schindler would be fined and jailed and those people who risked their lives to try to help Jews escape from Hitler's tyranny would be jailed for the humanitarian risks they took. We must make it clear that the penalties and sanctions apply only to exploitative traffickers, not just facilitators, and certainly not to vulnerable immigrants themselves. The Minister stated that this was not the Bill's intention but, as it is currently drafted, that is exactly what will happen. The continuing chaos at the Mount Street centre this morning, which is unresolved after nine hours of talks at the Labour Relations Commission, shows that the Government has still failed to come to terms with what is required. The fact that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has failed to respond to the request from its own security staff for additional security personnel shows that the Government is incapable of dealing with the physical demands, let alone the other deeper personal humanitarian considerations. It is appalling, for example, that some kind of canopy has not even been provided for those who have to queue in the rain this morning. There are no toilet facilities. Surely, we have an obligation to provide the bare basic physical necessities until such time as the people in the queue can reach the overcrowded indoor offices.

The announcement this week that the Government is to introduce a work visa programme is welcome. Undoubtedly, however, it is a reaction to the no confidence motion before the House, the public furore at the manner in which we have been seen to be treating people who come here expecting compassion and understanding and, last but by no means least, to the stinging attack by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, on the shambles over which the Minister presides. One fears, however, that it is a cobbled together panic reaction and that again the Government will not get it right.

First, existing asylum applicants, irrespective of what skills they may have, will not qualify or cannot even apply. Second, in the context of the current economic demands, 5,000 visas would seem to be much too few. Furthermore, one must apply from outside the jurisdiction. As I said before, what is urgently needed is a coherent immigration policy which has a short-term and long-term vision of what is required, which is properly structured and administered, which delivers decisions within a reasonable period after the applicant applies and which is reviewed on a regular basis in order to establish if it is working or how it is performing.

We need, however, more than an immigration policy. We also need an integration policy. We need to arrive at a stage where people who are given work visas or Irish citizenship become part of the Irish nation. We need to avoid a repeat of the German situation where the large Turkish influx resident there still see themselves, after several generations of living and working there, as Turks and not Germans.

Mr. Howlin

There is no German citizenship.

Mr. Higgins

(Mayo): There is no German citizenship. We need to assimilate new residents into the Ireland of the new millennium without, at the same time, infringing on their cultural characteristics.

Above all, we need to rid ourselves of the paranoia and xenophobia which has characterised so many of the expressions on this issue. We need to see controlled immigration as a good thing and to develop a pluralist and multi-cultural society in which everyone's diversity is recognised and respected. We need to look at a number of imaginative instances which prove we have the capacity to cope.

Deputy Howlin mentioned Wexford. I live in a small community in the west which would be looked on as a typical provincial parochial community and of which I am very proud. Ballyhaunis is a community of 1,100 people which has 111 Muslims, including Pakistanis, Indians, Libyans and Syrians. They are excellent citizens and have an excellent work ethic. They work for a living and none of them draws the dole. The children go to school locally, the parents participate in the local management boards and parents' committees and they involve themselves in community activities. They have their own mosque and religious practices but at the same time they have integrated.

After 25 years, the experience of having a multi-ethnic group in the middle of a provincial rural community has been most enlightening, invigorating and uplifting. If this is possible in a small rural community, which would be perceived by many outsiders as not having the capacity to open its doors in such an admirable fashion, surely to God it is possible on a wider scale throughout the length and breadth of this country. What is wrong with us, as a nation, that such horrific expressions of racism are broadcast daily on radio as the two sides of this argument are trotted out and vigorously debated and argued?

I know what the Minister is trying to achieve in terms of dealing with trafficking. I support the concept of ruthlessly dealing with those who involve themselves in commercial exploitation of the trafficked – the vulnerable, the weak and the people who come here looking for refugee status and asylum. However, I doubt the efficacy, efficiency or effectiveness of the measure. One must acknowledge that the exploiters, the commercial vultures who exploit, are non-nationals and are resident outside the jurisdiction. They are people who see an opportunity to make a quick buck, a fast dollar and a commercial killing and who sell the idea that Ireland is a place where immigrants are dealt with on a fast track basis and where they can be guaranteed a job without any administrative difficulties. While I appreciate the thrust of what the Minister is trying to achieve, from the point of view of its effectiveness, I do not see it as dealing with the problem because the perpetrators, the people at whom we are trying to get, do not live in this jurisdiction.

I warn the Minister about making Aer Lingus, for example, aircraft carriers, or ferry companies if people decide to come by boat, responsible for checking whether their passenger complement are bona fide people coming to this country to reunite with relatives or as tourists, football fans etc. Going down that road has horrible consequences and the Minister would be well advised to have a rethink before he introduces amendments on Committee Stage.

Mr. Howlin

I share many of the concerns expressed by Deputy Higgins about this legislation. Like him, I give notice that we will require very careful scrutiny of every line of the Bill on later Stages. We are engaged in a most delicate job and we need to get the balance right. I welcome the Minister's indication that he is approaching this issue in an open fashion and that many of the sections, as drafted, need a fresh approach and to be looked at anew.

There is no doubt that the substantial increase in recent years in the numbers coming to this country to seek asylum has created significant administrative and organisational challenges to us as a society. It was a challenge faced by the previous Administration, but I readily recognise that the scale of that challenge has increased for this Government as the numbers, as illustrated by the Minister, have substantially increased. However, it must be said that the numbers seeking refuge here – it is important to say this constantly, and I put the figures on the record last night – are still a fraction of the numbers presenting themselves as refugees and asylum seekers in neighbouring EU member states, some of which are geographically smaller than Ireland – I cited Holland and Belgian – and some of which have greater population density.

One economic analysis indicated that at the end of the economic plan published by the Government last week, we would be, per capita, the fourth richest State in the European Union and among the richest nations in the world. It is a natural corollary, as night follows day, that people from impoverished backgrounds would seek to improve their lot by coming to a land which offers, or hopes to offer, opportunities just as countless generations of Irish people did since the Famine, aided, abetted and supported by public representatives and prominent figures in this land. The organisational and administrative failures we have seen in recent weeks cannot be denied by anybody. They have resulted in asylum seekers being treated in a deplorable manner that no Member could defend. Surely there is now an unanswerable case for the Government to urgently present a coherent, humane immigration policy and integration strategy.

State institutions have not shown a humane face to those who have sought refuge here. The issues behind the increase in the numbers of asylum seekers are human ones – people fleeing from their own countries to avoid persecution or ill treatment because of race, religion or political belief or simply escaping dire poverty. This State has failed to recognise that human dimension and up to now has seen it in terms of threats, costs, problems and administrative issues. I recognise that the Government provided additional staff and resources to address the issue, but its general response can only be characterised as being hopelessly inadequate.

The first major decision the Minister made on taking office was to effectively shelve the Refugee Act passed by the previous Government. That Act was designed to provide fair and humane treatment for processing asylum applications, but the Bill remains largely unimplemented, despite the motion passed unanimously by the House in December 1997. Many justifications and excuses have been proffered, but the Minister indicated today that that Act has yet to take effect. After two and a half years in office that is simply not good enough, whatever the justifications or excuses. This is the Minister's second Bill on immigration or related matters. The first, the Immigration Bill, was characterised by me, Deputy Higgins and others as, more accurately, a deportation Bill and was regarded by organisations like Amnesty International and Comhlámh as draconian and excessive. It sought to restate powers struck down by the courts that were originally given to the Minister under the Aliens Act, 1935. Despite our reservations about that Bill and the fact that we opposed it on Second Stage and sought to amend it, the Minister's approach has not been to provide the necessary safeguards to society in the framework of a humane policy but to extract individual issues that would build a wall around our society.

We need additional powers and penalties to penalise those who, for financial gain, exploit vulnerable people seeking refuge in Ireland. There is already clear evidence that people are trafficking for profit. However, I would like more concrete evidence of the widespread trafficking to which the Minister and other Fianna Fáil backbenchers have alluded. One can sometimes accept the cliché that every asylum seeker being brought into Ireland is the victim of a huge international criminal gang. Let us see the evidence. Fianna Fáil backbenchers have been challenged on the matter and they have said they have evidence, though they do not have statistics to hand. That is not good enough. Assertions must be based on proveable fact.

In terms of taking strong action against those involved in criminal activities and in trafficking in vulnerable people, the Minister has broad support in the House. However, I fear that this Bill does not make any distinction between professional traffickers, who must be sought out and punished, and those who, for humanitarian or personal reasons, assist those seeking entry to Ireland and refugee status. Are the families of those already here to be criminalised? If the Bill is passed without amendments it will create many problems for organisations which work with refugees and asylum seekers. Under this Bill, a person who organises his or her family's entry into Ireland could be charged with trafficking and face deportation. That is not what is required and the majority of Irish people would not support it.

Many people who seek asylum here do so because of persecution or ill treatment in their home lands, but the Bill does not seem to acknowledge this. The Bill reflects an ethos that is prevalent under this Administration and which is fundamentally hostile to the concept of asylum seekers coming here. Under this Bill, as Deputy Higgins said, even Oscar Schindler would be subject to prosecution. I visited Yad Vashem in Israel, where the Avenue of the Righteous commemorates those who assisted Jews out of Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, often in breach of their national laws. I know it is not the Minister's intention that that category of people be penalised, so we must ensure that possibility is removed from the Bill. I welcome the Minister's comment that the Bill, as drafted, is inadequate and requires amendments. If he puts amendments down we will look at them, but if not we will put amendments down to ensure that differentiation is clear and unambiguous.

Section 2 is the core of the Bill, as the Minister said, and I am concerned by its broad nature. What does "knowingly facilitates the entry into this State" mean? Does it refer to someone who provides information about Ireland or makes a reservation for travel or accommodation here? How broad a net does the Minister intend this provision to cast? Regarding the definition of an illegal immigrant, obviously everybody who is not legal is illegal. Every potential asylum seeker is illegal until his status is determined, unless they come as programme refugees. It is an absolute requirement to bring clarity to this situation so that we do not have such a broad net that anyone providing backup – families giving information to their own members or organisations designed to help families, for example – could find themselves technically in breach of this provision and subject to a hefty penalty.

The Minister referred to the implications it would have for corporate bodies, which can be prosecuted under this provision. Companies such as Aer Lingus, Ryanair and Irish Ferries could find themselves in jeopardy and, to judge from his Second Stage contribution, that is the Minister's intention. How can a company such as Irish Ferries make a decision about the legal status of everybody who gets on a boat in Holyhead, Pembroke or elsewhere? If the Minister's suggestions become law, these companies will be required to do that and they will face draconian penalties if they do not. What will they do? They will err on the side of caution and exclude people. There is enough of that already. Deputy Browne from Carlow described an unfortunate scene at a ferry port when two Ghanians were refused entry. We do not need more of that. We need to create a more humane and open society.

The Minister has introduced two legislative measures, the Immigration Bill and this Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill. He also introduced the regulations under the EURODAC conven tion which requires the fingerprinting of asylum seekers. These measures may be justified in the context of a humane overarching strategy. However, since they are, as of now, the only arms of strategy to be produced by the Minister in two and a half years, it is clear to any balanced person that what the Government has done to date – the Minister acts on behalf of the Government – is to build a wall to reduce the entry of non-nationals to this country as far as possible.

That is the Government's strategy. It was revealed by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, on a recent edition of "Questions and Answers" on RTE when he asserted that the problem had been largely resolved in June last year. His definition of the resolution of the problem was that the numbers were down to a trickle. As far as he was concerned, if we can stop the people coming here, the problem is resolved. There is no suggestion that we might share in a proud way and include people escaping persecution and give them status, a home and support in a way that would broaden and enrich our society. The proposed solution was to reduce the number to a trickle.

My constituency is on the front line when dealing with asylum seekers coming to the country. During the summer months the French ferries frequently bring in asylum seekers, often in pitiable conditions. I do not know what the latest boat brought in, but when I checked last Friday there were 215 asylum seekers residing in Wexford town. That is a significant number in a relatively small town. They are reasonably well assimilated. A few people commented on the situation last year but, by and large, there is no great antipathy towards them.

The problem is that only four of the 215 have been given work permits. The bulk of the asylum seekers have been assessed by the local community welfare support system. They are skilled and able to work but are going demented from lack of work. Employers, on the other hand, are begging me to get them work permits. We are trying to do that. One lathe operator got a job recently and he has transformed the work practices of the company in which he works. He is an asset to society and the economy in the area. Why are we so miserable with work permits? There are only four work permits for the 215 people in Wexford. I do not know the national number of work permits; the last figure given by the Taoiseach was 15. We need to move this process along in a more structured, humane and open way than has characterised our approach to date.

The Government's attitude to this issue is clearly riven by different views. In today's newspapers the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, claims credit for finally shifting the attitude of the Administration. She maintained last night that "things have begun to happen" only since she publicly criticised Government policy. She does not give the Minister or the Taoiseach credit for moving now; she takes the credit. She said she was speaking as a PD Minister of State and on behalf of her party. She told The Irish Times yesterday that as a result of her intervention, the Taoiseach has called a meeting of Ministers on the issue and “a democratic debate has started in the Dáil and in civil society”.

Are we not lucky to have the Minister of State to ensure there is such a democratic debate? It is clear that having run the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of State has decided she needs to run the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform as well. I am extremely pleased that her intervention has changed Government policy in the way she indicated to The Irish Times. I hope there will be clear evidence of that. The House will be reassured to hear that the Minister of State has been reassured by the Tánaiste, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that a totally new approach is being taken on this issue and as a consequence of the reassurances, she is willing to support the Minister in the Dáil vote tonight. That will give the Minister great comfort.

This Bill is a draconian measure when it should be balanced in the context of an overarching policy. Negativity is all we have seen so far from this Administration. The Immigration Bill provides for the power to deport and reinforces it in an even more draconian way than existed under the 1935 Act. That Act was passed during the 1930s, a backward time when we did not understand or want integration of society or the concept of pluralism. That policy has been condemned by Comhlámh, Amnesty International and many other progressive groups in society. The Minister then introduced EURODAC which gave him the power to fingerprint all asylum seekers so they can be cross referenced and checked on a Europe wide basis.

He now introduces this trafficking Bill which is also draconian but unclear in its import and effect. It will be necessary to address and clarify the effect of section 2 and other sections on Committee Stage. I would be willing to support some of these measures in a broader context, if there was a proper immigration strategy which would fast track asylum policy and the processing of applications for asylum, implement in full and resource as required the Refugee Act and, at the same time, establish new broad criteria for allowing economic migrants to enrich our society and provide the skills that are desperately needed, as has been identified by economists and analysts. However, we do not have that.

Thanks to the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, a debate on the issue has started within Government. Only last week the Taoiseach said, in reply to a question on the Order of Business, that the immigration and residence Bill would not be ready until well into next year. How will we implement the policy that was announced, or the kite that was flown by somebody on behalf of the Government on Monday, to bring 5,000 economic migrants? We have no idea how that will be done. Following the Taoiseach's response to the Order of Business this morning, the position has been made clearer in that new legislation is not envisaged. This policy, therefore, must be implemented under the existing criteria, which are draconian and unworkable in terms of giving relief to economic migrants who want to come and work here.

We must take certain steps although I know the Minister has set his face resolutely against this. We must regularise the position of the people who are here. The majority of people who have been here more than a year should be given refugee status now, but the Minister believes that would be an enormous pull. We must introduce a fastrack system to process and deal with the balance and with any new arrivals seeking asylum. Those who are given a right of residence here must be assimilated into society in a proper way by being given supports, language training, skills training and assistance in finding accommodation, health supports and a job. We must have a proper framework to process further economic migrants that this country will require. They will be the essential components of a rational immigration strategy. The Minister said the Opposition has not spelt those out. I have repeatedly spelt those out on Committee Stage of the Immigration Bill and on Adjournment Debates, but there are none so deaf as those who will not hear.

Issues arise that define the character of a nation on occasions. In the past, social issues defined whether we had a progressive stance. In our time the immigration issue defines that. As the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, said, we can be drowned out by the voice of the xenophobe. She described the voices of some Fianna Fáil backbenchers as xenophobic and intolerant. We can allow ourselves to be drowned out by the xenophobe and the intolerant or we can decide to move on to a new rich society that is pluralist and accommodates difference of religion, colour, background and provides for that in a structured way. We should not use words such as "swamped", and "overrun" that pander to the basest fears. It is a challenge for us to lead and not follow on this issue.

This Bill is part of a pattern that indicates the path taken by the Government is not the path to creating an inclusive, pluralist society, humane in its treatment but rigorous enough against those who exploit our laws or seek to prey on those who are unfortunate. We need the strength and the stick that are included in this Bill and in other measures the Minister has brought forward, but they must be tempered with a humane, overarching policy we have yet to see. I await, with some concern, the future development of immigration policy under this Administration. I will continue to support the Minister in any area where he moves in the line of creating a plural Ireland and openness. I will support him and his party will support him in putting in place proper barriers to protect the weak or to protect our society from those who would prey on us or seek to exploit us.

Up to now he has not got the balance right. When the dialogue that was indicated takes place between Ministers and Departments is concluded in the near future, I hope this legislation and other legislation I mentioned will be set in a context that will have a much broader support in this House than the actions of the Minister to date.

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Mr. T. Kitt)

I wish to share my time with Deputy Ardagh.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Briscoe)

That is agreed.

Mr. T. Kitt

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this useful and healthy debate on immigration. It is recognised that much work needs to be done. I acknowledge the work of my ministerial colleague, Deputy O'Donoghue, and other Ministers who are grappling effectively with this problem. It has been recognised a new problem that poses difficulties for all those involved, but the only one way to deal with it is through a multi-departmental approach and that is being led by my colleague the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue.

There has been a good deal of talk in recent days about immigration as if it is something new here. People come and go here all the time in order to broaden their horizons and further their careers. Ireland is now part of the European Union and as such, all its citizens, including Irish citizens have the right to move and take up residence and employment anywhere within the European Union. Sometimes that point is missed.

People from outside the European Union may also come to Ireland and take up employment on the basis of having obtained a work permit. Ireland has an open policy on people outside the European Union coming here to take up employment. Work permits are issued, and renewed without restriction, to those coming to Ireland to take up employment. Work permits are also available to asylum seekers who arrived before 26 July last and who are awaiting a determination to their status for at least one year. These people, who number approximately 2,100, are free to seek employment and have their employers apply to my Department for a work permit to be issued.

There is a further grouping 2,700 asylum seekers who arrived here before 26 July last who will qualify when they have been here for 12 months, in other words, up to 26 July 2000. These people are free to seek employment and have their prospective employer apply for a work permit on their behalf. To date some 80 applications have been received from employers for work permits for asylum seekers. Of these, 37 permits have been issued, a further eight applicants have been approved and the remainder were ineligible or are currently being processed.

Mr. Howlin

Thirty-seven.

Mr. T. Kitt

That is correct. Following the Government decision of 26 July last, my Depart ment together with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform immediately established procedures to facilitate qualifying asylum seekers, and these are working satisfactorily. My Department also met media and support groups and briefed them on the procedures put in place whereby qualifying asylum seekers are treated in exactly the same manner as all people seeking work permits. In other words, the employee's employer makes an application on his behalf, following which my Department checks the status of the asylum seeker with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and then a permit may be issued. The procedure is as simple as that. Immediate steps were also taken to update the Department's information literature and its Internet website. The placement service of FÁS is also available to asylum seekers seeking employment.

The point has been made that the procedure for asylum seekers is too complex, but my response to that is that my Department will issue some 6,000 work permits this year for other people coming to Ireland and taking up employment.

Mr. Howlin

Does the Minister of State have a breakdown of the nationalities of those 6,000 people?

Mr. T. Kitt

We have a breakdown of their nationalities and I can supply that to the Deputy.

Immigration is a normal feature of Irish social and economic life and a means by which we welcome diversity. During the 1990s Ireland has had unprecedented rates of economic and employment growth. This economic growth was built on the rising quantity and quality of Ireland's labour force. The size of our labour force has greatly expanded over recent years and this was enhanced by the immigration of people from not only Europe but elsewhere and those people have contributed to our economic success.

As we look to the future, there is a continuing need to welcome people to Ireland to assist us in the attainment of our economic and social goals. In the 1990s we overcame the unemployment endemic to the 1980s. Our labour market is now tightening, with skills and labour shortages becoming apparent. We need to address these shortages, which are not just for highly skilled professionals but also for craftspersons and those engaged in the provision of personal services, tourism, the retail sector and the area of production and construction. We need people with skills and experience in the high tech and labour intensive sectors of our economy, so that we may offer competitive products in the globalised market which will be the key to our continuing success.

The Government is addressing the issue of labour market shortages by means of a series of initiatives. These range from tackling identified future skill shortages by targeting increased educational resources to ensuring a supply of people with appropriate qualifications.

The national development plan will provide for continuing improvement in the skills base of the workforce and the Government, through its employment action plan, will continue to increase participation in the workforce. Increased support for child care has been well signalled and the next budget will assist more parents to take up employment as well as contributing to the overall quality of life. The Government will shortly publish a Bill putting part-time work on a formal basis, thereby making re-entry to the workforce more attractive.

All the above measures will contribute to sustaining growth through employment growth. Employment growth in the past two years has been spectacular, with an increase of 95,000 people employed in the year ending April 1998 and a further 96,000 people employed in the year ending April 1999. Increases of this magnitude will only take place on the basis of increased immigration, with 55 per cent of those immigrating to Ireland being Irish people and their families returning to take up employment. This is a great achievement by the Government and a wonderful opportunity for people who wish to return and take up employment.

As we look to the future, we will continue to need an increasing amount of immigration to meet the needs of the labour market and to retain our planned 5 per cent per annum GNP growth. The pool of Irish people wishing to return to Ireland is diminishing and we must look to other sources to meet our labour market needs. Two thirds of the immigrants who come to Ireland come from the rest of the European Union, with the bulk coming from the UK and Northern Ireland. It would be appropriate in this time of momentous change in Northern Ireland if employers in Ireland and people in the North of Ireland developed closer working relations so that the full potential of all this island could be met.

There are many skilled and unskilled workers in the European Union who, given Ireland's positive image and attractiveness, are interested in coming to work in Ireland where they can further their careers and learn new skills in the teleservices area, for example. We also wish to develop relations with the applicant countries in the European Union with whom we will have increasingly closer contacts as time develops. We should accord a degree of preference to people from these countries and encourage them to take up employment in Ireland so they may advance their skills, contribute to the deepening of relationships between our countries and contribute in time to the development of their countries in the transition to membership of the European Union. I say this in the context of our responsibilities in developing the potential of these countries as part of the greater Europe.

Almost one third of immigrants to Ireland come from outside the European Union and their contribution to the economic and social life of this country is enriching. Many come to take up specialised employment in Ireland for which they are particularly skilled, while others come to take up a variety of diverse occupations in line with their skills. We will continue to welcome the contribution of such people to Ireland and we must look to the future and the means by which the contributions such people can make can be aligned with our needs. In certain instances, this will be primarily a matter of promoting employment opportunities in Ireland abroad through job promotions organised by State agencies with participation from employers as appropriate. The objective should be to ensure as wide a dissemination as possible of our skill and labour requirements. These are issues which call for careful examination because if people are to be encouraged to take up employment in Ireland, we must be sure there is sufficient capacity in the labour market.

Our asylum system, although stretched, is processing applications to the highest internationally agreed standards, thereby ensuring that all applicants get a full and fair hearing. By permitting asylum seekers who have been in the system for over one year to take up employment, the Government has been responsive. We must not confuse those who are seeking asylum in Ireland with those who come to Ireland to take up employment. The clear distinction is that those taking up employment have made prior arrangements in relation to their work. I am convinced that as we look to the future we must refine our systems to meet our labour and skills shortages which are likely to increase in the years to come due to our continuing economic prosperity.

Mr. Ardagh

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. The issue of refugees and asylum seekers has understandably led to considerable public outrage over the conditions at the offices in Lower Mount Street. Many complex factors led to the scenes which were witnessed in recent weeks.

The Government has taken an active role in the development of a caring, yet responsible, policy on asylum seekers and refugees. The Bill is an important step in dealing with the issues in a comprehensive and focused manner. The scenes in Lower Mount Street must be seen in the context of an entirely unprecedented sharp rise in the number of people seeking asylum over the past three months, which could not have been anticipated. The current problems in dealing with refugee applicants have arisen because of the attempts to give them a comprehensive social service.

While it is desirable that we have two clearly defined and separate streams of migration to Ireland, the present system has led to problems in which the two systems have merged. First are the genuine asylum seekers and refugees to whom we have responsibilities and obligations both in a moral sense and under international law. The second stream is the economic migrants who wish to participate in our workforce because of the opportunities available to prosper in our booming and increasingly wealthy economy. This is the class of migrants to which the Irish have only recently stopped adding in cities in the US, Australia, the UK and mainland Europe.

Opportunities exist for these people but they must come here legally and their arrival must be facilitated and promoted. We need a responsive and flexible migration and work permit policy which will match both their needs and those of Irish society. It would be misguided and foolish to advocate a free for all immigration policy and no one is suggesting that. We must open up our society in a positive and focused way, but it must be regulated, streamlined, controlled and lawful.

The current problems are undoubtedly as a result of mixing the two streams. Many economic migrants pose as refugees and asylum seekers when they arrive in this country. We need proper systems for both streams because mixing the two is the fuel which has fired the present acute problems. The challenge facing Ireland and all other European nations is to create structures which will enable refugees to be quickly identified and supported while at the same time identify those who are not refugees and, where necessary, arrange for their repatriation in order to preserve the integrity of and public confidence in the refugee system. That is why the Bill is relevant.

There were 5,497 applications from asylum seekers to the end of October this year compared with a total of 4,626 for 1998. There were approximately 1,000 applications in October 1999. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, following consultation with the UNHCR, recruited additional staff to deal with the growing numbers. They are currently dealing with up to 1,000 people per week in a centre opened in October 1998 to cope with 500 per week.

While asylum seekers living in private rented accommodation are dealt with by welfare officers in their local community, those living in emergency accommodation are dealt with in Lower Mount Street. Some 2,600 asylum seekers are staying for longer periods in emergency accommodation because of the housing crisis. Deputy Howlin said there are 215 asylum seekers in Wexford, which is a port of entry for Ireland. Much can be said for increasing the number of asylum seekers dispersed throughout the country so that everyone can share in their responsibilities towards these people. The fact there are so many in emergency accommodation means that queues develop which puts pressure on the centre's welfare officers.

Our treatment of asylum seekers is extremely generous in comparative terms. Asylum seekers are entitled to the full range of social benefits available to all citizens. Emergency accommodation for the Dublin area cost £12.2 million in 1998. Between January and June 1999, £5.3 million has been spent on emergency accommodation for asylum seekers. It is estimated that more than £20,000 per night is being spent on providing such emergency accommodation. Rent supplement for private accommodation is also provided by the Eastern Health Board for more than 6,000 asylum seekers and paid by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. A sum of £9.8 million has been set aside for asylum seekers this year out of a total budget of £103 million and this sum is expected to increase out of necessity. The Department expects this and other welfare benefits for asylum seekers to top £35 million by the end of the year. I do not begrudge this money to refugees and asylum seekers. I simply state the cost of our generosity which is given without any compunction.

There is particular pressure in the Dublin region which has led to the further downward displacement of our own disadvantaged people. This has fuelled public hostility, particularly in the more economically deprived areas. In the constituency which I share with you, sir, there is particular pressure in the Dublin 1, 2, 7 and 8 areas where the poorest and most socially deprived people in the country live. These are the areas with the greatest density of refugees and asylum seekers. It is imperative that we accelerate the current moves to extend the outreach service and to begin housing refugees outside Dublin in Cork, Limerick, Galway, Castlebar, Dún Laoghaire and Wexford to ease the pressure on the Dublin region. There is an enormous will to do this right but in the face of a phenomenon which is new to us there are inevitable difficulties in ensuring that the system responds to this complex problem as quickly as we would wish. In dispersing asylum seekers we must use structures which are not equipped for the task. Local social welfare officers will have to learn very fast how to deal with asylum applicants, interpreters will have to be put in place in all geographic areas and welfare and hospital treatment will have to be devised for the needs of asylum seekers. These are measures which cannot be implemented overnight yet they are needed urgently.

We cannot condone illegal immigration of economic migrants posing as refugees. Following the well publicised incidents of groups of people being smuggled into the country in goods containers in an attempt to evade normal immigration checks the Minister has acted quickly in expressing his concern. Our concern arises on two fronts. First, the phenomenon of illegal trafficking in immigrants constitutes a serious level of exploitation being perpetrated by organised criminal elements and gangs who arrange the movement of vulnerable individuals across borders in Europe under extremely dangerous conditions. It is correct that we act in as constructive a manner as possible to obstruct and penalise this type of underworld business which is essentially profiteering in human misery. Second, this type of inward migration into Ireland obstructs our obligations to genuine refugees. It places unfair burdens on our social welfare system and is injurious to the very disadvantaged sections of our own society. It also fuels public misunderstanding and ill-directed resentment at the emergence of a modern, pluralist and mature Irish society.

To tackle this problem I fully support the Minister's effort in introducing this Bill. We are heading towards virtually full employment and rapid and sustained economic growth has exhausted the labour pool of unemployed women and returning migrants. The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Kitt, has advocated a positive and flexible approach to the looming skills shortage and I support the merit in his suggestion. It is now obvious that our continuing prosperity could be jeopardised by labour shortages and we need to give a lead on the question of opening up the Irish labour market. Long before this or last evening's debates, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform announced that new immigration legislation was required and that a new approach was needed. He has consistently supported the concept of legal immigration to fill labour shortages and his position has not changed. While the Minister has been criticised and may be mauled in the short-term, time will prove him correct.

Mrs. Barnes

With the agreement of the House I will share my time with Deputy Ring. I hope the public debate on this subject in all its aspects will force us to engage in a political and social debate inside and outside this House. For that reason the current controversy is to be welcomed.

I cannot support the assertion made on the Government side that we have shown an openness to people coming into this country and have a history of granting work and residency permits to foreigners, because we have not. Those of us who have been long enough in politics to have made representations on behalf of people who had experienced difficulties with the aliens section of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform know that that section was not just alien but hostile. The section was cloaked in a secrecy that was akin to something described by Kafka. A public representative was not allowed to know why a person was alllowed or not allowed to stay. People who came to this country, behaved perfectly and were granted residency permits from one year to another had to re-apply, never knowing whether their permits would be renewed. If their permits were not renewed, neither they nor public representatives acting on their behalf were ever told if this was because of some secret reason or some quirk within the aliens section.

In all my time in politics I have not experienced anything like the frustration and distress of dealing with that type of problem on behalf of my own constituents and others and everyone in this House has shared similar experiences. We must come to terms with the realisation that we have not had an open door policy. We had an open door policy with regard to getting rid of our own people and having them seek employment abroad. I was one of those people. There is hardly anybody in Ireland of my generation who did not work in England, the United States, Canada or Australia under difficult and sometimes very questionable legal circumstances.

On one hand we probably have the greatest personal experience of being treated as illegals in other countries than the people of any European country. Yet we are behind other European countries in recognising and acknowledging that fact and in appreciating what was done for us with regard to our legal status in other countries. Furthermore, the perception of the legislation we have attempted to introduce so far is negative. Will we adopt a positive attitude to what can be an asset as well as a problem?

We should rejoice in the fact that our economic success allows us, for the first time in our history, to have a multicultural, pluralist and open society, appreciating other people's beliefs, cultures and skills. We must acknowledge that those skills are needed at a level which none of us could have foreseen. I say to the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, that the figures are extraordinary. The Government can tell us the numbers arriving, their difficulties, how much they are costing and where they are congregated, and there is validity in that. However, we must also look at the low numbers we are processing. Agencies such as IBEC and the ESRI tell us we will need between 160,000 and 200,000 extra skilled people in the next ten years, yet the Minister of State, Deputy Kitt, said that 80 employers have applied for work permits. There is an outrageous disparity between the needs of this country and the speed of our processing machinery. That damages not only the people who are seeking to live and work in this country, but also our reputation, psyche, ethos and history. It also does not make good economic sense.

We need a huge programme of leadership, education and integration of people into our society. Most people in this country have not had that experience. However, we expected to be accepted and allowed to work, either legally or illegally, when we went abroad. Did we think we had some kind of divine, superior right that does not apply to the people seeking to work in this country and become part of our booming economy? This country has more space per head of population than any other EU country.

I will not repeat what Deputies Jim Higgins and Howlin have said, not just on this Bill but on every occasion. Many of us have spoken about this in committees and at meetings with the people involved. We will have an opportunity to discuss this in detail on Committee Stage. I welcome the Minister's statement that he is open to amendments. I will not repeat what has already been raised by Deputies Jim Higgins and Howlin in regard to the dangers in this Bill unless it is much more focused and concentrated. We all deplore the exploitation and trafficking, which was described by the Minister as slave trading. However, the grey line which has been described by Deputies Jim Higgins and Howlin must be taken on board. We must put in place as quickly as possible all the positive elements of the Refugee Bill, which thankfully became part of the Immigration Bill.

We must, above all, give political leadership, starting with the Taoiseach and the Government, in terms of showing that what we must come to terms with and deal with in a humane, positive way is not an overwhelming problem, but something that is needed and to be welcomed and will allow us to pay back a little of what we owe to other countries. A huge leadership programme is needed in that regard because anyone coming to this country in any guise, no matter how skilled, is perceived outside this House as illegal. A negative cloak of illegality has been attached to everybody. Every Bill we have debated in this House has focused on that, rather than on our universal and national obligations to the conventions. We do not act in a vacuum here because we must live up to our UN, European and world obligations. I ask the Minister to take on board the need to spell out the positive sides in every programme. We must provide a humane welcome, rather than regard this as a swamping, overwhelming difficulty with which we cannot deal. It does not do this House or our citizens any good to think we cannot cope with what will continue to be an advantage rather than a disadvantage.

Acting Chairman

I remind Deputies that this is the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Bill. Deputies tend to make broad-ranging contributions, which I can understand because it is a very emotive subject. However, the Bill is aimed solely at those who traffic in illegal immigrants. I ask Deputies to confine their remarks to the matter before the House.

Mr. Ring

These matters are all tied together. There is no point in forgetting about our past. Deputy Barnes mentioned that speakers on the other side of the House had said this country is great for welcoming people. It is great for welcoming people, provided they are coming on holiday and bringing dollars or pounds with them. It then wants to see them leaving after three weeks by ship or aeroplane. It also loves to see Americans coming to this country when they are announcing 500 or 700 jobs. However, there is not such a great welcome for asylum seekers or those seeking to raise their families here.

When I went to school we brought in 1p or 2p for the black babies. That was wonderful as long as the problem was far away from us – we did not know what the problem was and we did not really care. A photograph would be taken of the nun or priest handing the money over to the person who would bring it to the black babies. This country has now matured.

I come from a large family in County Mayo, which has seen a great deal of emigration. Yesterday I went to Sranataggle and Porturlin. There are more people from those two areas in America, Australia and Britain than in Sranataggle, Porturlin and Carrowteige. I have probably more relatives buried in Arizona, New York and other parts of America than in Ireland. My father and grandfather and their families had to emigrate. I am sure it was not easy to go to America. When I look at films and programmes about Ellis Island I think about people from Achill and Belmullet who arrived in New York without a word of English but had to speak as Gaeilge. I will return to that later.

We sometimes forget about the church at the centre of the parish and about these people. Past Taoisigh, from all parties, flew on St. Patrick's Day to meet the US President and Irish Congressmen, such as Tip O'Neill, the Kennedys, the Moynihans and the Morrisons, to ask them to get green cards for Irish immigrants. In 1987, 47,000 left our shores to try to make a living elsewhere. In a new beginning the economy has been turned around and we are now doing well. We are, however, very racist. We forget about the past and want to think only about the future and ourselves. We have not welcomed those who need to be welcomed.

My party's spokesperson, Deputy Jim Higgins, spoke about the need for an immigration policy. Employers tell us that they cannot find staff to fill semi-skilled positions in restaurants and hotels. There is also a shortage of skilled staff. While I agree with the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell – perhaps one is sometimes poisoned in government with Fianna Fáil – she seems to speak with two tongues. She sat down as the Progressive Democrats representative with her Fianna Fáil colleagues to review the programme for Government. Why did she not make such a policy part of the programme for the next two years? Why did she not say it was part of Progressive Democrats policy and that if it was not included in the programme the party could not remain part of the Government? She said one thing to the media and something else to her Fianna Fáil colleagues. I do not like that. If I believe in something I fight for it, but perhaps the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, holds a different view. The Progressive Democrats Party has four Dáil Deputies. If the five Dáil Deputies for the constituency of Mayo formed their own party perhaps they could also be in government and dictate policy. Perhaps this is something we should consider to solve this problem.

Mr. Roche

Who would be the leader?

Mr. Ring

He is speaking. A message is being sent by Fianna Fáil. Another is being sent by the Progressive Democrats—

Acting Chairman

The Deputy should refer to the Bill before the House.

Mr. O'Donoghue

He took a while to get to it.

Mr. Ring

I am outraged at the way in which the Government has handled this matter. The public is not afraid of those who seek to come here. What it is concerned about are the queues in Mount Street shown nightly on RTE news programmes. The Minister can direct his officials to deal with the problem. If extra staff are needed they should be provided. That is the reason the public is frightened. Another message is being sent by Fianna Fáil backbenchers. I do not want to see a repeat of the traveller situation where everybody says that, while something should be done for immigrants, they should not be placed beside them. That is the big problem and the reason there is a need for an immigration policy which should be applied equally throughout the State.

The economy is doing well. There is no reason therefore we cannot take in 5,000 asylum seekers. In 1987, 47,000 took the ship to other countries. I made representations of behalf of many emigrants. I asked friends living illegally in the United States if they would put them up and find jobs for them. It was the right thing to do at the time and I should not be prosecuted for doing so. We were glad to see them leave as we were not in a position to provide employment for them. While in the United States recently I spoke to a woman from north Mayo who takes into her home emigrants who do not have a green card and are unable to find employment. Instead of the Gay Byrnes of this world these are the people we should honour for helping and assisting our young emigrants, many of whom have done well in the United States.

Now it is our turn to provide for immigrants. We should be ashamed that the Government does not have an immigration policy. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, had an opportunity to deal with the problem three months ago when reviewing the programme for Government, but she did not avail of it. She sent one message to the media and another to the Fianna Fáil negotiating team.

The west has lost many fine individuals through emigration. Most of my relations are buried outside the country. As someone said it is payback time.

Mr. Roche

I am sorry time ran out on the last speaker as he touched on a point on which I will touch. As he said, hypocrisy is not confined to one side of the House in this debate. There are few nations on God's earth which should have a more sympathetic understanding of the plight of the immigrant than this one. For generations the children of this nation were scattered to the four corners of the globe. In some cases they were treated generously but in others they were treated with hostility. It is not so long ago since "Irish need not apply" notices adorned the windows of businesses and boarding houses in England. We rightly and understandably resented that prejudice. It is wrong therefore that prejudice should enter into this debate.

Historically Irish emigration was fuelled by political persecution in small part but it was mainly the product of economic circumstances. The great bulk of Irish emigration, like the great bulk of migration, was motivated by a desire for a better life. Above any other nation we should be capable of putting in place a constructive, sympathetic and, above all, humane policy governing immigration.

We have had a problem in the aliens branch. It is not today or yesterday however that the problem was noted. As far back as 1981 I spoke of the racism which underlay the operations of that section and asked that the Ombudsman Act be changed to deal with it. I also asked that the Freedom of Information Act be changed but I was unsuccessful in both cases. We have a Minister in office, however, who has shown he is not just practical and pragmatic but also humane and understanding. He is working hard towards the solution of an intractable problem.

It is odd that we in Ireland should have a difficulty in this regard at this time. In many ways it would be in our own self-interest to have in place a humane and logical immigration policy as we face the novel situation for the first time in our nationhood where there are skill shortages. We shortly will have.

We have failed badly in this area. We have had six or seven years of significant immigration. We now have our own problems of undocumented immigrants, many of whom are being represented as asylum seekers when we all know that they are not – they are economic migrants. The fact that they fall into the latter rather than the former category is not an excuse for failure or putting in place anything less than a humane structured and functioning policy for handling them. This gives rise to confusion in this debate.

If there is a policy failure, the fault spans several Governments. It is, to the say the least, a little galling therefore to have to suffer the hypocrisy of Members who served in the last Administration and failed manifestly to address this issue. One solves problems at the outset. It is easier to get on a bus at the depot. It is a damn sight harder to get on when it is speeding down the road. It is all very fine for members of the last Administration who did absolutely nothing to point the finger at the Minister. The bus started trundling away from the terminus when they were in office. They did nothing constructive, positive or humane to address the issue. It is a bit rich for them to be critical of the Minister.

The hypocrisy which has informed this debate is extraordinary. We have witnessed on all sides of the Chamber – I do not excuse anybody in or out of government for being a hypocrite – extraordinary hand-wringing on this issue and a failure to address the matter. In December 1996, there were fewer than five full-time personnel assigned to the task of handling the already evident problem of asylum seekers. I made inquiries today of the Department and at that time, there was a waiting list of three years for an asylum seeker to get an interview. The people who are pointing fingers in this direction were in power at that time. There was a much smaller influx of immigrants and migrants at that time. Those people, in particular the ex-Ministers who spoke here today, knew there was a delay and they did nothing about it. The actual complement of people in that section when Deputies Howlin and Higgins were in office was 4.5 full-time staff equivalents. It is hypocrisy of the highest order for those people who at that time involved themselves in that Administration to come in here and point the finger at this Minister when he has increased the staff complement in that section to 127. That may not be enough but it is a great deal better than 4.5 full-time staffing complements. The backlog of cases at that time stood at thousands. With the 4.5 personnel that Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left were prepared to put on this issue, it would have taken an entire generation to resolve the existing backlog of cases. Sometimes it is convenient in politics to ignore the reality.

It is not true to suggest that there is an unwillingness in this Administration to behave humanely in this matter. Significant staff and funding resources have been invested in this issue. Deputy Olivia Mitchell is in the House, and she served with distinction with me on the Eastern Health Board. She appreciates as much as I do the problems faced by that organisation and enunciated by its chairman. It is extraordinarily dishonest of people to try to avoid the realities of the debate. It costs this city £20,000 per day to provide humane, emergency accommodation for these unfortunate people who have been dumped on our shores. If the Minister were to say tomorrow morning that all those people were now documented, we would not be able to handle the housing crisis. On the issue of the housing crisis, as we approach the Christmas period, our indigenous homeless people in Dublin will not be able to find accommodation because every emergency bed in the city has been taken up.

There is genuine concern about this issue on all sides of the House, but I want to illustrate the level of hypocrisy involved by making specific reference to a Minister of State. The hypocrisy in regard to this issue is illustrated by the simple issue of student accommodation in the Dartry area. Trinity College, Dublin, has been seeking to build accommodation for its students. We all know there is a student crisis in this city, and Deputy Mitchell knows what I am talking about, but the chattering classes in that area, with a high level of political support, are up in arms because they do not want the great unwashed, the student masses from Trinity College, invading the leafy suburbs.

It would be instructive for any member of the media who is really interested in this issue to examine some of the political patrons who are mounting the barricades to prevent the unwashed from Trinity College invading that suburb. It would be even more intriguing for them to ask what would be the situation if the Eastern Health Board tried to build a hostel in that leafy suburb to accommodate some of the unfortunate people who find themselves queuing in Mount Street. Deputy Mitchell and I served on the Eastern Health Board and we remember the outcry and uproar when it was suggested that the Eastern Health Board should buy a premises to accommodate people who are intellectually challenged, who have a disability or who seek methadone treatment. We remember the hypocrisy on that issue. Above all else, we are a nation of political hypocrites. It is grand to wring one's hands on an issue that gets one the endorsement of the liberal intelligentsia, but sometimes an issue of reality has to be faced, and we have to face the issue of reality here. There can be no doubt in the mind of any honest observer that there is a commitment to address this issue. It is intractable and difficult and it will not be easily solved. It is all very well to come in here and express concern for this matter, but it will not be solved by fine speeches.

Deputies Howlin and Higgins were characteristically theatrical on the issue. It is perhaps appropriate that they should be theatrical as we are now entering the pantomime season, but this is a serious matter. It should not be treated as a pantomime issue by people on either side of the House. Deputy Higgins asked, for example, the difference between an Irish undocumented citizen in the United States and those who pass themselves off as asylum seekers in this city. It is a valid question and we all know the answer. If an Irish citizen who is undocumented presented himself or herself to an official office in Washington DC, they would not be provided with free accommodation, social welfare payments, supplementary welfare benefits or a free medical card. To suggest there is a lack of compassion in this Administration, when we are providing all those benefits, and to make a bogus comparison such as the one made by Deputy Higgins is fraudulent political debate. Deputy Higgins knows well that if an Irish citizen who is an undocumented alien in the United States is caught, he or she is shown the door. Deputy Higgins raised the question of the difficulties for airlines. It is not just Irish undocumented aliens who sometimes are picked up and treated in an appallingly racist manner by some characters in the aliens service in the United States. Irish documented people can get caught up in that too, but we do not have time to go into that matter.

Wide of the mark though some of the Deputies may be, the prize for sheer offensiveness in this debate went to a spokesperson from Amnesty International reported in The Irish Times last week. That individual chose to draw a parallel between the current plight of those unfortunate people who are looking for succour in this nation and the plight of the Jewish people who faced the concentration camps during the Holocaust. That was an appalling and dishonest comparison. It does no credit to Amnesty International, which incidentally accepts the need for regulation against trafficking, that such an offensive and dishonest characterisation of this issue was made. The spokesman seemed to be more interested in headlines, and Amnesty International should clear the record and make an apology. It does little credit to Deputy Higgins that he picked up on part of that issue and mentioned it in his contribution today.

The Bill is aimed at those who are involved in trafficking in illegal immigrants and it provides a framework within which that problem can be addressed. It provides significant penalties to be enforced through the courts. It will be imposed, like all Irish laws, in a humane way. It aims to end the trafficking in human misery. I do not understand the reason anybody could find difficulties with the Bill. I am not suggesting that members of the Opposition should not question the Bill and try to improve its contents.

I will address the balance of my comments on the Bill, which is more than most commentators have done so far. The key element in the Bill is section 2 which provides for fines and imprisonment for the offences created in the legislation. Anybody who has ever witnessed the misery of the unfortunate immigrants who are transported into this country, often in sealed containers without access to food or any form of sanitary accommodation, will know that they are trafficked here by people who make huge profits from it. How could anybody be upset or offended by section 2, which attempts to deal with these parasites? The traffickers who prey on human misery must be punished. The organised gangsters who are involved in this trade in human misery have been getting off lightly and have been able to avoid their responsibilities. The entire focus of the debate has rightly been on the way we should welcome to our shores people who are less fortunate than ourselves.

Deputy Howlin suggested that the Bill is fundamentally hostile to asylum seekers, but nothing could be further from the truth – Deputy Howlin, who is not inexperienced, knows that. The Bill is hostile to the pariahs who profit from illegal trafficking. It is clear that the penalties in the Bill are not focused on those who accidentally or unconsciously involve themselves in the transport of illegal migrants. Deputies Howlin and Jim Higgins touched on this issue and, to their credit, I agree with their comments. It is important to ensure that carriers who accidentally and unwittingly find themselves involved in this issue do not receive the brunt of the legislation. Section 3 recognises that much international trade is cross-Border, involving sealed containers. It is important that innocent transport operators and owners are not unknowingly visited with undue penalties. In this regard, whatever I would say about the efficiency and administration of our courts, they have not been lacking in humanity. A reasonable balance is struck in section 3, particularly subsections (6) and (7). The Minister should be prepared to listen to any reasoned argument and I have no doubt he will do so.

Deputy Higgins was far off the mark when questioning how this matter would be administered. One can see how it is being administered by going to an airport. When one presents one's ticket at the check-in desk one is asked for a passport or some document to prove one's bona fides. The reality is that much of the smuggling into this country is cross-Border and there is a practical difficulty. I welcome the section of the Bill dealing with the issuing of warrants. It is pointless to deal with the "little" men involved, the drivers and the foot soldiers. It is important that we address this issue to the generals.

This is balanced legislation. It will not solve the whole problem but it will solve one of the problems. It is not always possible to solve all problems at once, but an honest effort is being made to address this issue. There is not a lack of compassion on this side of the House for the plight of migrants who come to Ireland because of political hostility in their own country or their wish to provide economically for themselves and their families. There is no monopoly on compassion for human misery on any side of this House. Compassion is equally shared among the 166 Members and it is the ultimate in hypocrisy to suggest otherwise.

I return to the criticism levelled at Deputy Callely. He was speaking about a specific issue and to be honest and open and to express one's views is part of democracy. I do not agree with everything the Deputy said, but I defend his right to say it. There is something fundamentally wrong with the manner in which public debate is being conducted. We conduct all debates in black and white – one is either good or evil. Let the chattering classes who get so offended by a revelation of truth show where they stand on this issue. Deputies Ardagh and Ring noted that we have our own minority in this country – travellers. I am always amazed by the fine sentiments expressed in the letters column in The Irish Times about how these matters should be addressed. However, if these people are put into a nice neighbourhood we would hear of all the difficulties. I recall a member of the media who used to become upset by rahoonery. However, the issue changed when a group of travellers moved within a couple of hundred yards of her rather splendid pad. I received telephone calls urging me to “get them out”, and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government was urged to do something about the problem.

Most of our political debate is informed by an extraordinary degree of hypocrisy. It is about time we grew up as a nation and realised that one cannot deal with complex issues as if they were a cartoon. There are black and white and shades of grey in the middle. This is a complex issue which deserves to be treated accordingly and in a mature way. The Minister is making an honest effort and, above all else, I believe that political debate which attempts to reduce this issue to car toon characteristics ultimately does no service to resolving the problem. This is a difficult problem. No nation should be more compassionate, open or willing to deal with the immigrant problem than Ireland, as many of our people were scattered to the four corners of the planet. We have a responsibility to put in place an effective, efficient, humane and administratively simple system of handling the immigrant problem. It will be in our short-term economic interests to do so. However, it would be in the longer term national interest to open our shores and show a willingness to welcome people. No man is an island and no nation is an island anymore. We live on a global planet and we have to address this complex issue in a complex manner. Above all, our policies have to be informed by humanity and our political debates by realism.

Ms O. Mitchell

I welcome the Bill in that it targets the lowest form of humanity, those who seek financial advantage by exploiting the misery of others. Far from caring about them, these people risk the lives of those who have come to them in extreme desperation and have no qualms about putting people's lives in danger by the methods of transportation they use. No fine is too great and no penalty too much for such traffickers in human misery.

I do not think that this or any other domestic legislation will be particularly effective in catching such traffickers. One might pick up the occasional taxi driver coming from the North, but the Mafia is the brains behind trafficking. Such people are too cunning, selfish and devious, and too careful of their own skins to risk entering this jurisdiction. They have no hesitation in putting others in such danger, but they will never risk their own skins. The only hope we have of stamping out illegal trafficking in asylum seekers is through concerted international co-operation.

The danger is that we will target the wrong people because they are easy to catch. It is important to guard against over-zealousness in that regard. For instance, there are those who, for genuine but misguided humanitarian reasons, help refugees gain illegal entry into this and other European countries. This practise may be reprehensible but it is not a crime on the scale of that committed by those who do so purely for financial gain and endanger the lives of those they traffic. Similarly, truck drivers would be an all too easy target, regardless of whether they are guilty. It would be wrong to automatically presume complicity or foreknowledge on their part, or to hold them responsible for their cargo. Many drivers work long hours and it would be unrealistic to expect them to be personally responsible for keeping a 24-hour watch on the containers they transport, some of which are enormous.

In many ways this legislation may be a distraction from dealing with the real issues which surround the problem of asylum seekers, of which we have spoken in the past few days. I use the word "problem" carefully as that is what it is. It is a problem which requires realism but, in many ways, it is a problem of our own making. It is one of the inevitable problems associated with economic success and to which the Government must respond in a flexible and proactive way. There has been endless debate on problems of transport and housing which are due to growth and economic success. In all cases what is needed is a clearly articulated policy geared to meet the changed circumstances. This must be followed by a focused strategy to implement policy in a speedy and efficient way. The policy and administration which may have been appropriate five years ago when we were dealing with a handful of asylum seekers is not appropriate today. It is demeaning to asylum seekers and is causing great tension and distress for those seeking to administer the system. It is also feeding the potential for racial hatred, which we like to think can only be found in others but which exists in all of us. Most of all the system is inefficient and costs an awful amount of money, with little or no outcome in terms of serving our needs or the needs of asylum seekers. As Deputy Barnes said, a different policy could serve the needs of both.

It is clear that a completely open door policy in terms of non-EU nationals is unrealistic. We simply could not absorb the numbers and chaos would ensue, which would be in nobody's interest. Equally, we have commitments to refugees under the Geneva Convention which we must fulfil. We have a major labour shortage while thousands of skilled workers are arriving on our doorstep who could be, and in most cases wish to be, net contributors. Rather than allowing them make a contribution we pay them to do nothing. Surely, somewhere between the extremes of an open door policy and a "kick them out" policy, which seems to be advocated by some, it is possible to arrive at a policy which is both humane and mutually beneficial.

A single, tortuous and costly asylum process for refugees and economic migrants is clearly not working. We must make an effort to introduce separate procedures for both categories. I will not pretend that identifying a genuine refugee is easy, and I do not think that such identification can be done quickly. However, it is possible to separate many who are definitely not refugees by reference to their country of origin. We have an excellent and extensive diplomatic service gathering intelligence from and about every country in the world and it would be in a position to give us information on which countries are treating their citizens in a way which would require them to seek asylum in other jurisdictions. I suggest, for example, that Romanians do not fall into that category. I very much doubt that we would have accredited a new Romanian ambassador last week if that country forced its citizens to flee in order to preserve their lives and freedom. Of course, there are asylum seekers from other countries which fall into the same category. Therefore, if by definition they are not refugees, why on earth are we pushing them into an overloaded process which forces them to try to prove they are refugees? We know and they know that they are not refugees. Most of them are people who need a job, something we can provide. Why can we not develop an alternative system of processing which would be of benefit to us all?

I think it was the Minister or an official in his Department – I cannot recall – who said that giving out the few work permits resulted in an increase in the number of asylum seekers entering the country. I do not believe there is any evidence that is true. It is far more likely that people in countries less fortunate than ours have heard about the Celtic tiger and that we are a prosperous country and have jobs available and skills shortages. They would like to come here, but their only opportunity to do so and to take up those jobs is by becoming an asylum seeker. That unworkable legislative framework, and the almost inevitably inefficient system of administration, is causing the problem.

We all know that unworkable legislation and regulations almost always promote abuse of the system. We do not need non-nationals to teach us that lesson – we are only now discovering the extent of the ingenuity of the Irish nature to abuse and evade the penal tax system which existed in the past, for example. It is nothing new for people to be forced into abusing a system which is bad and does not work. I know that not every asylum seeker is a genuine applicant in terms of being a refugee or looking for work. I know they are not the cream of society as many of our emigrants were not the cream of society. However, they are rational. Some of them are gypsies from Eastern Europe who have experienced huge upheaval in recent years and who are genuinely poor and need to move around. They have heard that we are inefficient and take a long time to process applications. They know that if they come here they can be sure of two good years before being deported. Human nature being what it is they will naturally avail of those kinds of opportunities. It does not bother them too much if they are deported at the end of two years as they are nomadic by nature. We promote, encourage and facilitate this by not having a system which allows another method of entry or of processing applications. In other words we are providing an incentive to abuse the system by not reacting to the problems we are clearly experiencing in trying to deal with refugees and which are manifested at the Refugee Application Centre in Mount Street, on the airwaves and the media over recent weeks.

A much more serious and sinister abuse which has been reported to me is the practice of paying single Irish mothers to register a non-national as the father of their children. In one case I heard of a pregnant girl being approached at a bus stop in Dublin and being offered £1,000 to accept and declare a non-national as the father of the child. I do not know the extent to which this is true or, if it is true, the extent to which it is occurring. However, it seems to have developed into an urban myth. I am aware that I am speaking with privilege in the House, but this information was given to me by a fairly reliable source and as a result I have reported it to the Garda. My point is that an inappropriate system of dealing with asylum seekers almost inevitably promotes that kind of abuse. There is an incentive to abuse the system. If a young non-national male has an Irish born child, not only will he not be deported but neither will he require an all-important work permit. This can make a huge difference to such a person's life. It gives future security, changes his status and economic wellbeing and gives him opportunities undreamed of prior to that. Therefore, there is an enormous incentive for him to offer £1,000, or more or less. There is also perhaps an economic incentive for a single Irish mother to take £1,000 if offered.

In the absence of another way of getting a permit the incentive to abuse is enormous and probably compelling for a young male who is in the limbo of the asylum seeking process. It would be far better to have a system which obviated the need for that kind of deception. False registering of fathers has all sorts of long-term implications, perhaps for the father, but certainly for the children when they grow up and try to find out something about their so-called parent.

I welcome the announcement that visas will be granted here which will allow non-EU nationals to work. It is a sensible and practical response given that every sector is reporting labour shortages. I realise that on its own it will not stop illegal immigrants, but it should be made clear to illegal immigrants who enter the country that the option of taking up employment is open to them and expected of them. In some EU countries economic migrants are given a finite period of time with full benefits in order to find work and learn English. They are deported if at the end of that period it has become clear that they are not making an effort to find work. Obviously we have to work on a quota system – it is not reasonable to operate an open door policy. However, we can certainly take some economic migrants.

We are inescapably moving towards a more multi-cultural society, something with which we must come to grips and accept. There is no use in fighting against it. As the previous speaker said, we are now part of the global village and we cannot set our island afloat into the Atlantic and cut ourselves off from what is happening elsewhere. The problems, debates and tensions and the rise in racism which we have witnessed in the past year or so in Ireland will not go away. They will worsen as numbers grow unless we proactively manage the process of change to a multicultural society. That requires proactive management because it is a fundamental societal change. We should operate a rational and practical immigration policy. If we do that, we must also operate an integration, rather than assimilation, policy. It is to that we should turn our attention. A great deal of debate, research and thought must go into how we do that.

Research has been conducted on the outcome of refugees we accepted in the past, such as the Vietnamese and the Bosnians. They were programme refugees and obviously their treatment was different, and they came in different circumstances, in a better organised fashion and legally. They came to Ireland in circumstances of great trauma and were in poor mental health. Some of our illegal immigrants and refugees come in similar circumstances but there are lessons to be learned from the research.

I read in one of the newspapers in the past week or so that there is talk of dispersing asylum seekers beyond Dublin. I would welcome that because the housing crisis in Dublin is of monumental proportions. It causes tensions between housing applicants even without illegal immigrants. I am sure all Deputies receive calls from people on housing lists complaining that a certain person received a house and they did not even though their need is greater. That tension is raised further and gives rise to racial tension if the person who receives the house is a non-national. I am pleased we are examining areas outside Dublin, where there is not the same pressure on housing, to house asylum seekers.

This must be done in a programmed fashion, as it was the case with the programme refugees in the past. We made efforts to assimilate them into society but they did not work because, the Vietnamese, for example, were sent to different parts of Ireland. The research shows that this apparently was not a good idea because they all eventually ended up back in Dublin where they had the support of people from a similar cultural background and the social support which goes with living with people of the same ethnic group. We must learn lessons from that and move all Nigerians, for example, to the same place so they have support from people of their own ethnic background. The same applies to Romanians. This would give them an opportunity to form a community in their new locations. They will never be assimilated into society any more than the Irish were in America. They were integrated and are perhaps its best citizens, but they maintained some cultural identity. That is something we should encourage as it is in all our interests that we have a society of many cultures to enrich us.

There is one important aspect to integration we should examine. The use of reception centres facilitates the acquisition of language skills, and the research showed that English language skills are critical to integration. Competency in English meant immigrants were more likely to be employed, to interact with the Irish community, to socialise, to feel ownership of the country and to enjoy better health, both mental and physical. Change will happen in Ireland, and we either manage it or we do not. If we do not, we will have chaos. The new millennium will see an undoubted change in the fabric of Irish society which will enrich us. Many immigrants have new talents, skills, culture and energy which can contribute to the new Ireland as we did in the past in other countries. We have nothing to fear except inaction.

Mr. N. Ahern

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the Bill. It is appalling that people make money out of other people's misery and it is not something anyone could condone. It is widely believed that major international criminal gangs are at the heart of this, that many immigrants pay their life savings to get here and probably have to make continued payments to these people after they arrive, and that these people continue to effectively own or control them for a long time. The Bill sends out a message. It criminalises trafficking in human beings and it is proper that the Government and the nation should send out a clear signal that we do not condone this trade and that we will take every possible action to stamp it out.

Like others, I would like if legislation such as this caught the big fish and was targeted specifically at them. They probably know little or nothing about Ireland and probably will never set foot here, although they obviously know about us. I would like a distinction to be drawn between these people and genuine humanitarian groups or those motivated for the right reasons to help people. I fully accept what the Minister said about there being no fear of them being criminalised under the Bill and that it is targeted at the big fish and perhaps the smaller fish, such as the taxi man or whoever. I would like a clear message to be sent out that, while we do not condone wrongdoing, the penalties will be in proportion to the size of the crime.

Deputy Howlin seems to think this type of legislation is not necessary. We are an island but the refugee problem is a global one. We must have the same laws, rules and regulations as our EU partners and especially the UK with which we have a common travel area. The proof that many people are being brought into the country, as the Minister said, is that few of them present themselves at airports or ports of arrival seeking asylum. That might have happened in Shannon with Cubans some time ago, but it does not happen now. Most of them seem to be dropped off in the city centre in the middle of the night with a map showing the location of Lower Mount Street. It does not mean they are not genuine or sincere but it means they have fallen prey to the people the legislation is trying to combat. I hope it is successful in that regard. The fear that it may not be easy to enforce or to catch the big fish does not mean we are wrong to enact the legislation. One wants laws to be effective and for them to be enforced, but one also wants to send a message that this trade is not in order. All other European countries have such a law and I do not understand what evidence Deputy Howlin seeks if the view is held throughout Europe that such trafficking is taking place.

I welcome the debate on this issue and I will speak about the overall refugee system. We believe we are becoming educated, liberal and modern, yet we are also becoming intolerant. We are in danger of overdosing on political correctness. If one dares to question, query, wonder about or suggest that a policy be re-examined, one is in danger of being labelled a racist. The situation has been hyped up by some Members of this House and what I would term a "schizophrenic" media. I heard some of Vincent Browne's radio show while travelling in my car one night. He was in Mount Street and his coverage was totally unbalanced and off the wall. A person came into my clinic on Friday week last in a very upset state carrying a copy of The Evening Herald in which there was an article referring to the confiscation of knives in Mount Street. That was appalling. The author should be charged with incitement to hatred. The disparity and wide divergence of views in the media is appalling, yet we cannot query an issue in this House.

Perhaps it is easy for Opposition Members to be somewhat theoretical about this issue. I wish some Dublin Deputies from normal working class constituencies, rather than from Dún Laoghaire and Dublin South, which I regard as the wealthy pockets of Dublin, would come into the House to debate this issue.

Ms O. Mitchell

We have many non-nationals in our constituencies too.

Mr. N. Ahern

Perhaps there are not many such Deputies in the Opposition parties but I have not noticed any of them contributing to the debate on this issue. I have taken up several cases with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in which I sought work permits for people. I found the Department to be uninterested and uncaring. I have also spoken to various Ministers at different stages outlining the background to some cases, advocating that a humanitarian view be taken and recommending the granting of permits. However, Ministers have been unable or unwilling to interfere with the system. If people choose to look up the records on this issue, they might see that those of us who are being slightly blackguarded may have a very liberal record in regard to individual cases and that Ministers who may project themselves as being very liberal on these issues have not been able to ensure that message is filtered down through their Departments.

The Minister spoke previously about the "pull factor". The Cabinet decision made in July was wrong and the extra numbers we now see – up to 1,000 a month – have resulted partly or primarily from that decision. Although decisions may be quite sound in themselves, one must be careful about the manner in which they are delivered or perceived. It is right and proper that people living in this country for four years should be allowed to work. Many of those people are already working in the black economy and people do not seem to care about that. If one were to go into any car park, restaurant kitchen or bar cellar, one would find refugees working there. I have no objection to that. People are obviously being paid out of the till. That goes on and it is good and proper. We must be cautious about making a formal announcement in a fanfare fashion when we do not have control over the manner in which the message is projected and perceived. We now live in a global village and news travels across the world very quickly.

Some of this morning's contributions were somewhat theoretical. Deputy Higgins accused the Minister of not having a coherent policy and of making it up as he went along. How else can one develop policy? Life is evolving and changing. Some people adapt quickly to those changes while others move more slowly. Policies must change to reflect what is happening in the world.

We got off to a very bad start on this issue in 1992, with almost 2,000 people coming into the country. The system failed to react to the numbers of people coming in. If we knew then what we know now, we might have been wiser. There were greater disagreements between Ministers on the issue then than there are now and that may have been part of the reason some issues were not dealt with at that stage. The Minister and his Department have been very far-seeing in their actions in recent years and the number of people working in this area has greatly increased.

The establishment of a one stop shop in Mount Street was a very good idea and one which received wide support. It has become fashionable to have a one stop shop for everything these days. I am jesting when I say this, but perhaps the Minister's one error was to locate the one stop shop in Mount Street. Perhaps he should have chosen a back lane in a less fashionable part of Dublin. Although I am not condoning what is happening in Mount Street – people who come to this country are entitled to be treated with dignity – locating the centre on the fringes of Dublin 4 has obviously upset the sensitivities of the nice, middle class southside bourgeoisie.

Ms O. Mitchell

That is rubbish.

Mr. N. Ahern

It is not rubbish. People are queuing everywhere. Perhaps Paddy O'Gorman has failed to get the message across effectively. I would like to know whether some members of the media or some people from the southside have ever visited the office for the homeless in Dublin Corporation or the Eastern Health Board office on Charles Street. Harrowing scenes may be witnessed in many such places and it does none of us credit that we cannot bring an end to those.

Some people appear to be living in cloud cuckooland. They do not understand the hardship and grief suffered by other people. However, when the issue comes closer to home, they suddenly become very upset. The refugee issue has awakened some people to reality.

Deputy Higgins said that the Minister should refer this issue to the NESC. I am constantly surprised by what some people say. The Deputy also suggested that a new asylum applications office be located in Wexford. That was very brave of him. There probably is a need to create additional places to receive and welcome refugees, but they should be at ports and airports.

As public representatives, we have all tried and failed to obtain work permits for people. However, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has issued a considerable number in the past year or two. I welcome that and I welcome the announcement that more formal arrangements will be put in place in regard to bringing people into the country. It is only right that we would seek to attract people from countries such as Poland and Hungary which will become EU members in the near future.

My friend and his wife to be are due to move to Australia and have been processing their case with the Australian Embassy for almost a year. They have submitted all sorts of forms and all sorts of data about their qualifications, experience and so on.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.