Immigration Bill 2002 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Boyle

Before resuming my contribution on this Bill, I had the advantage of hearing the opinions of various organisations on the effects of the Bill. We have also had several opportunities to hear the philosophy that underlines the legislative programme of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

The Human Rights Commission has made a strong submission to the Oireachtas Joint Com mittee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights which deals with aspects of the Immigration Bill. It states, along with the UNHCR and others who are working with asylum seekers, that there are a number of areas in which the Bill may breach important international protocols. The submission mentions the fact that Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides everyone with the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution, might be breached. It states that Article 31 of the convention relating to the status of refugees, which provides for contracting states not to impose penalties on refugees, may be breached. Most important, according to the submission, Article 33 of that convention, the important guarantee of non- refoulement whereby each state is obliged not to send back any person in any manner whatsoever to a country in which he fears persecution if he returns, may be breached. On all those grounds, this is a defective Bill and the Minister is obliged to return to this House with a Bill that properly reflects our commitments in international agreements.

The Minister should state in his reply to Second Stage whether he agrees with these criticisms and, more important, whether he agrees with the right of the Human Rights Commission to make such a submission criticising the failings they see in this Bill. Recently the very same Minister sought aggressively to attack another civil servant in the performance of his duty, namely the outgoing Ombudsman and Information Commissioner, who was performing exactly the same role in regard to concerns he had about the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill. A Minister who behaved in that manner then is likely to behave in the same manner now.

We have also heard, since I last had the opportunity of speaking in the House on this issue, an extraordinary speech by the Minister in which he spoke about the culture of human rights speak and attacked the notion of a rights-based society – a philosophy that will permeate all legislation the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform intends to introduce here. Most obviously, it can be applied to the long-awaited disability Bill and the rights of those with disabilities. This specific legislation can also be applied to asylum seekers and refugees. If rights are to be defined as the Minister recently defined them in his speech, then we are much poorer as a society. He is dividing up the notion of rights between civil and political rights and economic and social rights. He says that social and economic rights should not be defined or put in constitutional or legislative form; that if they come about they should do so by way of recognition of the workings of Parliament and that it is the benevolence of Parliament that will decide whether citizens have rights in social or economic areas.

The Minister might see himself as a type of latter day Edmund Burke but even he must recog nise that this is a Chamber that does not operate to the highest levels of parliamentary democracy. We do not have a parliamentary form of Government; we have an Executive that largely determines what is decided, when it is decided and what resources are provided for particular measures. A Minister who suggests that rights in relation to asylum seekers and refugees will somehow be defined for citizens and residents in our country is a Minister who is playing fast and loose with reality. This is a Government that will never grant such rights because it is philosophically disinclined to give rights to those it believes are not entitled to them. It is because the Government makes the definitions and decides how resources are divided that we need, in constitutional and legislative form, a defined series of rights for all members of our society.

The Minister will also need to respond to the point that Ireland is probably already in breach of Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in that people are being turned away from this country at the point of entry even if seeking the right of asylum. A recent newspaper article affirmed this fact and the Irish Refugee Council has also stated that there is growing evidence of asylum seekers being refused entry at Dublin and Cork Airports.

It is ironic that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is bringing in a Bill to introduce controls which, in practice, are already in operation by officials of the State. We also need to be concerned that in the long run, the trend of European Union anti-immigration laws seems to go even further. It has been proposed that legislation be introduced stating that where a person does not have a return flight, that person will be deemed to be a person who should no longer be in the country. This is being talked about and will possibly take the form of a directive to be adopted by all member states of the European Union. We then get into the very grey area of whether we are using such laws to affect genuine asylum seekers and refugees. Will they be applied as they were in the case of a noted Zimbabwean human rights lawyer travelling from a French airport to this country last week? If we are turning away people on the most tenuous of grounds even though they have a legitimate right to travel, we have already lost an important battle in regard to the standards of decency that should prevail in our society.

A further irony is that the Minister, as a result of discussions taking place at European Union level, is obliged to introduce the immigration and residents Bill in this House. If such a Bill is to come before us, why are we debating the Immigration Bill 2002? The Minister has, in his public pronouncements, given the impression that he is a "can do" Minister who is tackling problems but he can, in every aspect, be seen to be failing in terms of not living up to what he is saying in public and not providing any political back-up for what he is promoting in legislation.

I made the criticism in the past that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is responsible, with 37 proposed Bills, for most of the legislation on the Order Paper. Yet, we have no date in relation to the introduction of more than half of them. The propensity of another Minister to invent legislation was mentioned earlier on the Order of Business. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has an additional skill in that he goes so far as to give such legislation a title, yet none of us knows whether there is any intent behind it or whether we, as Members of the Dáil, will have an opportunity of examining such legislation.

I will return now to the Human Rights Commission's criticisms of this Bill. It is clear from the sizeable submission presented to the joint committee that a precedent exists in international case law that what the Minister is proposing in this legislation cannot, given existing standards, be applied at an international level. The Minister needs to take responsibility for legislation with which the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees disagrees.

Now that the Minister has returned to the House, I will repeat the three criticisms made by the Human Rights Commission in regard to this legislation and perhaps he might respond to them later in the debate. The Commission said it is likely this Bill will breach three international conventions, Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 31 and 33 of the convention relating to the status of refugees. I also asked earlier if the Minister agrees with the correctness of the Human Rights Commission making such a submission because he appeared to have difficulty with officers of the State taking on a similar role in regard to other legislation in the past. The Human Rights Commission has done a good job in putting forward a critique which needs a response. I have yet, as a Member of this House, to hear the Minister or other members of the Government commenting on whether there is validity in such criticisms and what changes, if any, we intend making to this particular legislation to make it better.

Based on the Human Rights Commission's criticisms, the fact that we are already breaching the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by turning away asylum seekers at airports, the criticism of the Irish Refugee Council and the fact that European Union legislation is heading in an even more draconian direction and is not supported by the majority of people in this country let alone in this House, the Minister needs to take this Bill away and reintroduce it rather than subject it to the wholesale number of amendments it will need on Committee Stage to make it a worthy Bill.

Mr. C. Lenihan

Deputy McDowell has again proved himself an active Minister, presenting legislation which in many ways is long overdue. We, as a country, have been the subject of unforeseen and unforecastable net inward migration in recent years. The extent of this is challenging and would be so for any Deputy who would be in charge of the justice portfolio at this time.

Over the past seven years we have seen an astounding level of inward migration. To illustrate that, we are talking about a net inflow of 20,000 people per year. From 1999 to date, 100,000 non-European economic area nationals applied for work permits.

In 2002, 93,000 people registered or renewed their work permit applications. That illustrates the extent to which we must be careful of the systems which we designed for a period when this was not a country which was a source of immigration but which traditionally – for obvious reasons of poor economic performance and other historical factors – exported its people to other countries. For all those reasons, we were singularly inept and unable to deal with this crisis when it broke.

I am reminded again of the period prior to the 1997 election when we had a confused response to this issue from the rainbow Government. There seemed to be a kind of occupational schizophrenic or sclerotic response from the then Government, which was not able to make up its mind then or in its period in Opposition to this Government and the previous one which came into office in 1997. The rainbow Government was not prepared or able to make up its mind as to what policy it favoured in this whole area.

That is something of which one cannot accuse the Minister, Deputy McDowell, or his predecessor, Deputy O'Donoghue. They made a clear policy and philosophical choice, that we would be firm but fair. They made clear that we would be fair to genuine asylum seekers looking for the protection of the Irish State under the UN Charter, but firm towards those who are abusing the system and undermining the chances of the genuine asylum seeker from achieving the status he or she might seek.

The dramatic figures are there for everybody to see. Some 90% of all the applications for asylum are rejected and the number of people who, having lodged their applications, simply do not show up for the requisite interview to establish whether they are genuine, is quite astounding. The figure, on which the Minister may correct me when he replies, is of the order of 47%. In the subsequent appeals process, an astounding 11% of people do not show up, even though they have gone to the bother of appealing. That demonstrates that there are clear signs, although these are anecdotal because one can never be precise in these matters because we cannot physically trace or track down these people who have simply disappeared. One cannot establish scientifically whether they are abusing the system but the odds are that they are doing so if they do not bother to show up. This Bill addresses that issue in a timely way.

For those people who do not give an address on applying for asylum on arrival in Ireland, there is also a new requirement in the Bill that they have five working days to give notice of their address to the authorities. That is reasonable, given that at present there are about 1,000 people who have arrived, invoked the asylum procedures and said they are political refugees fleeing persecution, but who have disappeared having lodged their application and made that particular cry for help in seeking asylum status. It is extraordinary that there could be 1,000 such people. The Minister is deciding to close down this loose procedure, mainly because we as a country were not prepared to deal with this problem.

As every Member will be aware, up to about seven or eight years ago we were a relatively culturally and ethnically homogenous society. One of the most unpleasant aspects of representational politics in Ireland in the 1990s and at the turn of the century is the horrible underbelly of racism which has been exposed by our enormous economic success. It is clear that in my own constituency and, according to what I hear from colleagues, also in other constituencies, particularly in urban areas – I do not know about and cannot speak for rural areas – there is a horrible undercurrent of racism in this society towards people of a different colour, towards genuine people coming here to work and even towards genuine asylum seekers. It is a great tribute to all the Members—

Mr. C. Lenihan

I will be clear for the Deputy.

I have heard and listened carefully to Deputy O'Flynn and indeed to Deputy Callely prior to when he became a Minister of State. Their statements and comments were wildly exaggerated by a media and Opposition that were all too ready to exaggerate.

Mr. Durkan

The Deputy should not blame the media.

Mr. C. Lenihan

However, the public are still demanding an answer, not only to Deputy Durkan's question last night, which exposes whether it is still Fine Gael policy to compensate the Eircom shareholders and to compensate taximen. They would also like to know whether it is still Fine Gael policy to allow asylum seekers to work while their application is pending. We all know the effect that would have on the employment scene in Ireland. We are all aware of the inequity it would breed in this country whereby people in a vulnerable position applying for asylum status would be systematically exploited for a short period by employers who would be aware that those workers would be deported if their application was refused.

The Opposition response to this issue is hypocritical. It resorts to a liberal critique of this Minister and his predecessor as being tough and as eroding civil liberties. This is utter nonsense. Many of the changes being implemented in this area are directly in response to the fact that our island neighbour, the United Kingdom, or Britain as it is sometimes called, has decided to tighten up its rules and regulations. We had to respond regarding the social welfare code and provisions for the same reason.

The Secretary General of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Tim Dalton, stated at a meeting in the last session of the Committee of Public Accounts that Ireland had become and was perceived to be a soft touch as far as illegal immigrants were concerned. In other words, when Nora Owen was Minister for Justice, Ireland was being advertised on every website as being a soft touch and a place to go for illegal or economic migrants seeking to land their boat somewhere in Europe. That was the position during the time of the Government previous to the Government of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats. The laws were applied fairly loosely.

This legislation will tighten up regulations dealing with the "no-shows" and the issue of an address which must be supplied within five days or else the application will be deemed to be invalid and the person will be deemed to be in the country illegally. It deals with the matter of "no-show" for the first interview which is an essential part of determining whether a person is a genuine refugee seeking status here. If a person consistently fails to appear for the appeal hearing it is clearly indicative that the application is not serious and should not be treated as such.

The Bill also deals with the question of carrier liability. I listened with interest to Deputy Boyle's contribution which can only be described as bleeding heart stuff when he spoke about measures which may not be compatible with UN conventions. This is the kind of rhetoric we have been listening to from so-called do-gooders and the do-gooder class for the past six or seven years. It is quite different in reality. I do not for one moment confer any legitimacy on the ignorance and racism that exists in our society but I wish to share with the Deputies opposite a very simple fact. I have a list of issues that people bring to my notice as I go on my regular constituency walkabouts in Tallaght and elsewhere. The biggest issue which is raised, apart from insurance for young motorists and more recently, the health sector—

Mr. Kehoe

The Government is doing nothing on that either.

Mr. Ring

The Lord have mercy on the Deputy's father. He was not bad at shouting. I remember he closed a school in Newport. I remember the State car arriving and the three of them in it. They promised them the biscuit factory. The Deputy should ask his mother about the biscuit factory in Ballina. Deputy McDowell would not know about the biscuit factory but that was the promise at every election for 50 years.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This has nothing to do with the Immigration Bill.

Mr. C. Lenihan

I am not going to stand over everything that happened in the past either in my own party or in any other party, but it seems that Deputy Ring has become a leading exponent of this type of politics. Perhaps that is why he is so successful in that particular county, that people like this kind of colourful politics. They may be a bit bored with the spin doctored and very mediated version of politics that is presented to the Dublin audience and often assumes that the Dublin audience is the national audience whereas clearly in Mayo they are defying the best efforts of spin doctoring and mediated politics to keep electing an individual of such charisma as Deputy Ring. There has been a deafening silence from the Fine Gael Party regarding its policy. I am talking about hard policy choices.

Mr. Kehoe

What is the Fianna Fáil policy?

Mr. C. Lenihan

It still believes that the immigrant pending appeal should have the right to work. That was the policy. Three leaders later it is not clear what Fine Gael policy is and if it has a policy other than standing up and saying that because it has been part of the furniture that the electorate will feel it is needed. I am not convinced. Public opinion polls show that while we decline, its decline is even sharper and more sustained over a long period.

I offer a friendly warning to Deputy Ring for whom I have a great affection. He should be careful and not depend on that Fine Gael label in the next election because it will be anything but a guarantee of electoral success.

Mr. Ring

We will not be pulling €12 million out of our drawers.

Mr. C. Lenihan

Mr. J. Higgins

It is a pity he did not tell us that in his speech.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Deputy Conor Lenihan may have meandered somewhat during his contribution. I would like to share time with Deputy Twomey.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Issues of asylum and immigration have become increasingly important for Ireland and its citizens since I was first elected to the Dáil in 1997. We have a more diverse and multi-cultural society than ever before. The past six years have seen an unprecedented number of people coming to live and work in Ireland. There has been an unprecedented number of applications for asylum. Most Irish people have greeted these changes in an open-minded and hospitable manner, which is exactly what we should expect of them.

New ethnic communities have been formed. Our children are learning from the cultures of people from many parts of the world. The children of such people, in turn, are enjoying Irish culture, such as our native language, music and national games. I am happy to say that I have had first-hand experience of such developments in terms of traditional Irish music, song and dance and a developing and interesting command of our own language in my community in County Monaghan. Tragically, we have also seen a persistent racism among sections of the community. This has manifested itself in many ways, such as silent hostility, verbal attacks and vicious physical assaults on people because of their skin colour or ethnicity.

The Government's response to the need to develop better asylum and immigration legislation and practice has been totally inadequate. It falls far short of the leadership given by those who have worked to ensure that those who come to live among us are greeted justly and fairly. I will resume my contribution when the Minister, Deputy McDowell, has finished his tête-à-tête with his official, as my words are directed at him. Perhaps the Leas-Cheann Comhairle would like to ask the Minister to pay attention, as he might actually learn something. This is a very serious and important issue.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. McDowell)

The Deputy has to earn my attention.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I am delighted that the Minister has chosen to grace the debate on this subject with his presence and his attention. Let me say at this juncture that the manner in which the Minister's colleague, Deputy Conor Lenihan, challenged Fine Gael earlier was very interesting. The Deputy clearly believes that refugees and asylum seekers should not be granted the dignity of the right to work while their applications are being processed. I have no difficulty in affirming in the House this evening, as I have done on many occasions in the past, that I believe such people should be granted the dignity of the right to work. Deputy Lenihan's comments wound these unfortunate people. He proceeded to insult Irish employers by saying that they would either exploit or take advantage of the status of these unfortunate people. Surely we can legislate against exploitation, if necessary, rather than legislating to exclude, as this Government has done repeatedly and as this Bill seeks to do.

This Immigration Bill is the latest in a series of flawed enactments in the area of immigration and asylum introduced by this Administration since 1997. My colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, who is Sinn Féin's spokesperson on justice, equality and law reform, has put on the record my party's opposition to the Bill and has urged the Minister, Deputy McDowell, and the Government to withdraw it. I reiterate that call this evening. This Bill should be withdrawn and completely rewritten in consultation with those who deal most directly with asylum seekers and immigrants and who are aware of the reality. At the very least, it should not go to a select committee after Second Stage has been passed by the House. It should be the subject of joint committee hearings so that the many organisations and individuals who have expressed grave concerns about its implications can outline in detail their case for a different and better Bill.

The Government should listen, in the first instance, to the substantial body of opinion that is opposed to the Bill, which includes the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, Amnesty International and the Irish Refugee Council. It will be a serious setback if the Government proceeds with this Bill in the face of such opposition on the part of those who are respected nationally and internationally. The principal objection to this legislation is that it introduces the principle of carrier liability. In a State such as this, which can be entered only by sea or air or across the Border, carrier liability amounts to an end, in effect, of the right to claim asylum as we know it.

Mr. McDowell

Is the Deputy aware that the European Union requires us to have carrier liability?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I will address the core difficulties in regard to the terms and methods of carrier liability in a few moments. I am delighted that the Minister is now paying attention.

Mr. McDowell

The Deputy attracts my attention when he goes into error.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

The carrier liability provisions amount to an end of the right to claim asylum as we know it. They mean that the staff of ferries and airlines will, in effect, become immigration officers and adjudicators on the right to asylum. The Government cannot credibly argue that this does not affect the right to claim asylum. Carriers will be penalised if they carry passengers without proper documentation. It is the nature of genuine asylum seekers – those fleeing persecution – that very often they do not have proper documentation and have to escape from countries under false names. This Bill will turn the carrier into a barrier. It does not provide for a right of appeal or the application of the hitherto internationally recognised right to claim asylum. The Government has, quite rightly, condemned the heinous practice of trafficking in human beings and I join it in condemning this absolutely. We have seen a number of examples of smugglers causing the tragic deaths of unfortunate people seeking to come to this jurisdiction. I deplore the activities of such ruthless people.

What will this Immigration Bill do? This Bill and similar legislation, including EU legislation which the Minister was quite right to mention, will turn Europe into a fortress. Similar legislation throughout fortress Europe will drive people into the hands of smugglers. It will have the contrary effect to that claimed by the Minister and his co-drafters in the Department. It can only result in further tragedy. Only this week, the Irish Refugee Council stated that people are being deported from the State without being given the chance to claim asylum and without getting the opportunity of a hearing. They are being turned away at the airports without being given the normal courtesy of an opportunity to present their cases. They are being deported on the next flight. This amounts to summary deportation – I cannot describe it in any other way. People's rights are being violated.

Genuine asylum seekers are being returned to situations of danger. I have no doubt that this is the case and that it will result in tragedies in other jurisdictions in other circumstances, which will reflect on Government policy and how it is enacted. The Irish Refugee Council has publicly stated that people in the prison system and in airports have contacted them to express concern at these deportations. These are people in the employ of the Government in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform who are expressing concern. The council also pointed out that although the Government was offered EU funds to provide human rights monitors at airports and ports, it has not taken up the offer. Will the Minister confirm if that is the case? If it is, will he explain it to the House. I urge him to take up the offer and appoint such monitors in line with the offer from the EU, which he and his colleagues are sometimes wont to quote.

The Bill is fundamentally flawed. It is a major backward step for asylum seekers and it does not address the reality of immigration and the rights of immigrants. In recognition of the time I will leave my notes aside and stand before the Minister – as I did before his predecessor, Deputy O'Donoghue – and appeal to him to listen, to take heed of the heartfelt appeals of Deputies in this House. It is not a matter for political sword fencing. This is a matter of firm and fundamental belief systems. There is a challenge here. There are levels on which we agree but there are clear and fundamental areas of disagreement. The Minister and his colleagues must take on board the words not only of Deputies but those of the many eminent bodies working at the coalface with refugees and asylum seekers. He must pay heed and listen not only to the nationally-respected organisations but to the internationally-respected ones who have clearly voiced their disagreement and opposition to the proposed legislation. I urge the Minister to withdraw the Bill and to engage with all of that opinion. In the event that that is not his decision, I ask him to refer it to the joint committee in order that a proper hearings procedure can be put in place.

Dr. Twomey

We can rely on Deputy Conor Lenihan to carry the torch to ensure that we will no longer be accused of being soft on immigration. If the Minister's resolve on immigration issues ever weakens he should join the Deputy in the Dáil bar where he will no doubt be informed that he is not going far enough.

While non-nationals seeking asylum or refugee status constitute a significant minority, their integration into mainstream society has been slow. There has been much discussion about how we deal with our new and expanding role as hosts to a large number of asylum seekers and immigrant workers. There will be difficulties in this role because we all have racist tendencies, whether we like to admit it or not. Tensions will always exist between cultures unless there is an effort towards understanding.

Over the course of the debate on this Bill last April and today we have spoken about many issues relating to the refugee council. However, a system has existed in the field of health care for a number of years that is less well known. There has been a form of institutionalised racism in our health services for years. We still treat many of the non-EU doctors in the health service very badly. If we have such a negative approach towards these non-national doctors why should we be surprised to find out that the overall feelings of the population is negative towards non-nationals, especially those of African or Asian descent? We are not doing enough to combat racism in society and we have never done so. Non-EU doctors make up some 80% of the non-consultant hospital doctors in hospitals outside the major urban areas of Dublin, Cork and Galway. A significant number of these doctors also hold temporary consultant contracts in these hospitals. If anything were to happen to the availability of non-national doctors the effects would be the closure of more hospitals than even the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, would expect in his wildest dreams. We await what will emerge in the report which is due in the next four to five weeks in that regard.

The recent threatened closure of the accident and emergency department of Wexford General Hospital was due to one non-national doctor returning to Pakistan and another one being accepted for specialised surgical training in the national health service of the United Kingdom. We have allowed our health system to become dependent on non-EU doctors because so few of our own doctors have the desire or the inclination to work in our health system which is increasingly falling apart and becoming much more bureaucratic than it was even ten years ago. Many of the non-national doctors stay in Ireland for the full seven years that their temporary registration with the Medical Council allows. In that time they provide medical service to the people of Ireland which is vital in keeping smaller hospitals across the country open. Many such doctors bring their families with them and they go to Irish schools, make Irish friends and, as the saying goes, they become more Irish than the Irish themselves. When the seven-year period is up they are no longer allowed to practice as doctors because they are not able to get temporary registration to work here.

The Medical Council has made changes to the regulations to allow these doctors apply for full registration so they can continue to work here. These amendments must be sanctioned by the Minister for Health and Children. To my knowledge, no doctor has yet been affected but the deadline is fast approaching for many. Meanwhile, the amendments have been with the Department since last June. This constitutes a significant issue for those doctors who have given so much to our health service, who are prepared to continue to work in our shambles of a health service and yet the amendments have not yet been signed off. If this is the way we treat non-nationals who are vital to our citizens well being then it should come as no surprise that we have a lackadaisical attitude to the rights and anxieties of asylum seekers and refugees.

The Immigration Bill will slow down the number of asylum seekers reaching our shores. As has been pointed out, genuine refugees do not get the time to get their documentation in order. As a GP I have dealt with asylum seekers and while I agree with some Government members, I would like to try to view the situation with more understanding. Many asylum seekers could be classed as economic migrants. Regrettably, we are afraid to voice these opinions in a public forum or even in Dáil Éireann because we could easily stand accused of racism. Significantly, by not saying that these abuses exist in the system where people can claim asylum does a disservice to asylum seekers who need our understanding of their plight. I would not like to go down the road of Deputy Conor Lenihan who was almost trying to incite those who disagreed with his opinions. If that is the way he talks about such things in Dáil Éireann, I would hate to think what he says to his constituents in the privacy of his clinics.

A great deal of legislation in regard to this issue will be forthcoming from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It is a complex subject but if we are serious about making real changes in society we have to look at the issue of racism from a social point of view. There are a number of social factors and, as has been pointed out both directly and indirectly, we still have a very negative reaction towards asylum seekers and to refugees and immigrants in general. I hope that in the course of the debate on this Bill and future legislation on this issue, we will have a more enlightened approach to how we deal with it.

Mr. Ring

I have only a short few words to say in regard to the Bill. Deputy Conor Lenihan was critical of leaders of Fine Gael, past and present, but, like his Fianna Fáil colleagues, the members of Fine Gael do not take him seriously. I do not blame the Progressive Democrats for not taking him too seriously either because his comments are not worthy of a response.

I want to ask the Minister a few questions which he might answer when he is replying to the debate. First, does the Government have any agreement with China concerning the number of Chinese people coming into this country? Second, does the Minister have any figures for the number of Chinese people living in the country and do they all have work permits? The Minister might not have the figures now but perhaps he could let me have them at a later stage.

Mr. McDowell

There is no agreement but I will find out what the numbers are.

Mr. Ring

I thank the Minister. We are the most racist country in the world and there is no point in pretending otherwise. The Irish have travelled the world and I come from a county where emigration was a password. When a person reached 18 years of age, or even younger, he or she took the boat to Britain, America or whatever other state would accept him or her. Listening to many people who have come back here to retire, they are probably more racist today than when they left. Look at the way we have treated our own Travelling community – it is the greatest national disgrace. We must all share the blame for this because, as elected public representatives, we have not tried to delve into that serious problem. Travellers have been discriminated against since the foundation of the State and are still, even to this day. They feel that with all these people coming into the country they have fallen further behind and do not count, but that is wrong.

I do not disagree with what the Minister is proposing in the Bill. For the sake of the economy, we cannot allow thousands of people to come into the country every week, although as an EU member state we have to accept our quota. There is nothing wrong with that.

What precautions will be put in place at regional airports? I have received complaints that many immigrants arrive in Britain and then fly into our regional airports. That is how they are getting into the State undetected and they then apply for asylum or work permits. The Bill places a responsibility on airports, ports and lorry drivers and they should accept such a responsibility. We have seen refugees and asylum seekers emerging from lorries arriving in our ports. We also saw a terrible tragedy at Rosslare a number of years ago when a number of stowaways died of suffocation in a lorry. Trafficking in human beings is wrong and must be dealt with. The traffickers must be taken on and hunted, whether they are operating inside or outside the State. Anybody assisting the traffickers here must also be tracked down.

I have already written to the Minister about a constituent of mine who has been in this country for many years. I hope the Minister can see fit to allow that man to stay in the State because his life will be at risk if he returns to his country of origin. He is the most intelligent man I have ever met; he can speak French, Spanish and English better than some people in this country. He is seeking asylum and wishes to be able to travel in and out of the country freely. He also wishes to correspond with his own people living abroad to assist them to deal with the terrible dictator in his home country. I will provide the Minister with further details of this case, if he so wishes. I would like the Minister to meet this man who is the brightest person one could ever meet. One would think he had been living here for 20 years. He would like to be able to come in and out of this country to help his own people who are living under a dictatorship in their own country.

Asylum seekers should be allowed to work from the date of their arrival. Some people think asylum seekers should not be permitted to work, while others think that everything is provided for them. Many asylum seekers would like to be able to work. Every morning on the Order of Business I admire the sight of school children sitting in the Gallery. We now have people of different races coming into the State and we can see such children mixing with one another. They think nothing of working and communicating with each other, which is great. Children of different racial backgrounds are now participating in GAA games, including hurling. It is great to see them becoming involved in their local communities and that is happening because many such immigrants are being allowed to work and earn a living.

I do not disagree with the Bill on the basis that there has to be some security in the State and, in addition, we have to be able to watch who is entering the country and leaving it. We cannot allow an overflow of people to come in every week. Last year, some 20,000 people applied for asylum and the Department will have to deal with that. It is taking too long to deal with people who make asylum applications and it is the same with applications for work permits. People want to enter the work place and people want to employ them, but if they have not got a work permit they could be prosecuted for working illegally.

I heard Deputy Conor Lenihan speaking about employers who take on illegal immigrant labour but there are good and bad employers. Some employers will take advantage of immigrants, while others will look after them, treat them with respect and pay them a proper wage. There will always be rogue employers who will hire such people illegally and not pay them properly. That is something with which the Government and society generally, will have to deal.

We often introduce legislation but do not put in place the necessary protections, or empower people through proper resources, to deal with the aftermath of its enactment. In many cases concerning legislation we have failed to provide sufficient money and resources.

The Government recently made a decision concerning "detention centres"– I am using that term because people do not have free movement while they are waiting to be assessed by the Department. It is wrong to place 20 or 30 immigrants in a hostel and not allow them out into the general community. Where possible, these people should be given rent allowances. The Government has changed the legislation so that such allowances are no longer permitted and immigrants must reside where they are placed by the local health board.

This country has gained from immigration and we should not be too restrictive. We should allow a fair quota of people to enter the country. I live in a county from where tens of thousands of people emigrated. It is a pity that Deputy Lenihan is not here now. In recent years the Department of Social and Family Affairs penalised many returning emigrants when sterling and the dollar were strong. At the next Cabinet meeting, the Minister, Deputy McDowell, should ask his colleague the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, to examine this matter. Now that the euro is strong she should top up the pensions of such people because she took money off them for some years. I will start a campaign about this tomorrow morning, and every morning, on the Order of Business until social welfare officers give these people the dues to which they are entitled. These are people who emigrated in the past and now have to be looked after. I hope the Minister, Deputy McDowell, will support my point in Cabinet because he is a fair-minded man. These people worked abroad but could not afford an Irish pension when they came back. They were penalised by this State because sterling was strong at the time. However, sterling is weak now and the euro is strong, so the Government should deal with this matter.

We are racist in this country but people are beginning to realise that, whether we like it or not, we will have a mixed culture. Every town and village will have to play its part in dealing with racists by taking them on. We have to support immigrants and make them feel wanted, but we must also grant them their pride by allowing them to work and their children to attend school. They must also be able to access the health system. We must give them the backup they need. If we do so, they will be good citizens, paying their taxes and not depending on the State. Many of them do not currently have work permits but if they had that opportunity they would not require such welfare allowances.

Mr. J. Higgins

I would be the last person to restrict the scope of debate in this Dáil or the range of points which Deputies wish to make. However, when Government Deputies come to speak on legislation, among the wide-ranging points they might like to make, they should actually refer occasionally to the Bill. They should give the House a view on the proposed legislation under the guise of which they speak. In fairness to Deputy Conor Lenihan of Fianna Fáil, I would not expect of him an ability to raise the legal or parliamentary discourse in the House to the zenith of intellectual capacity. However, we should have heard views on the proposals which the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is bringing before the Dáil, together with reasoned arguments in that regard.

I would have expected that, prior to the continuation of this debate, the Minister might consider withdrawing the Immigration Bill 2002, in view of the cogent and reasoned arguments made regarding it by many of those who work at the coalface of immigration, with particular reference to the problems of refugees – people seeking shelter on our shores. Some relevant points have been made. In replying to the debate, there is an onus on the Minister to respond specifically to those points. This Bill is designed to frighten transporters and carriers into a policing role for the immigration service and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. That is entirely wrong.

In a speech on 10 December 2002 to a civil rights organisation, the Minister said that he was looking to enact the Immigration Bill 2002, whose provisions on carrier liability will allow a more effective policing of our borders and assist in combating illegal immigration and trafficking. In reality, the Minister is making transport companies and their employees agents of the State's immigration laws and putting an onus on them to implement the policing aspects of those laws. For example, employees at their desks, checking passengers going through airports or wherever, or drivers of various forms of transport are expected to act as immigration officers.

I ask the Minister to address this issue when he comes to reply to the debate, because that would be seriously subversive of the Refugee Act 1996 and of the Geneva Convention of 1951, to which this State is a signatory. The effect could well be to exclude those who would be found to qualify for refugee status if they had the possibility of a hearing. In effect, they would be unable to make such an application by virtue of being prevented from seeking access to that process as a result of transport carriers, in fear of the Minister's provisions in the Bill, implementing, in a ham-fisted and incompetent way, measures to cover themselves against the large fines and other sanctions which the Minister proposes against them.

The Refugee Act 1996 defines a refugee as:

a person who, owing to well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his or her former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

Essentially, the Minister is putting the onus on transport operators who have no expertise and no function in adjudicating on the merits or otherwise of any individual human being's application to be considered a refugee under this law or under the Geneva Convention. He is putting the onus on people who should have nothing to do with making such judgments. I believe the Minister will have to respond to that. It also involves putting undue pressure on ordinary workers, as a by-product of this legislation, apart from the fundamental human rights issues at stake in this regard. Checkers, transport workers, drivers and so on are not obliged to be expert in the range or validity of documentation which might be shown to them by people who, in reality, are coming to this State in search of refuge. From that point of view, the procedure is wrong.

The Geneva Convention recognises that, in the circumstances of those fleeing persecution and who may be in fear of their lives, it is justifiable to use invalid documentation to secure safe passage to a country where they can apply for refugee status or asylum. The Minister's proposal is seriously subversive of that possibility and that aspect has to be addressed.

One could give many examples of the way in which this legislation, if enacted, could be seriously detrimental to people genuinely seeking refuge. Indeed, a carrier might feel obliged to betray somebody to the very authorities from whom he or she was fleeing, in order to avoid the penalties the Minister is seeking to impose. The moral and, in my view, internationally legal course of action is that those seeking to flee from repressive regimes, in fear of their lives or persecution, should be aided in whatever way is possible.

Another serious problem is that this legislation, combined with similar legislation in other European countries, can have the effect of driving refugees into the arms of the gangster groups who traffic, quite callously, in human beings and, as we have seen in recent years, at the cost of literally thousands of innocent victims. This came to our shores in a dramatic and tragic way a few years ago when Kurdish people perished attempting to make their way to the United Kingdom. They were diverted here and found in a container in Wexford, which shocked the entire country at the time. I fear that the effect of legislation such as this will be to make more lucre for the criminal gangs who prey on human beings in this fashion. There have been even more horrific death tolls among people being brought into Britain, for example. People who flee from various African countries to the south of Spain routinely perish in the Mediterranean. These people are brought across by a variety of means or, in desperation, flee themselves. The point made, which is a valid one, is that it is difficult to legally present oneself as an applicant for refugee status within the EU and the difficulty is becoming even greater.

The Minister must say what steps he proposes to take in the event that he does not withdraw the legislation, which I still urge him to do. What steps does he intend to take to cut across the dangers I have outlined and to guarantee that those who are genuinely fleeing persecution are able to make safe passage to these shores in order to present their case and, I hope, get a favourable, just and successful hearing? Will he give advice and draw up regulations for carriers in that regard? Has he thought through this issue? As well as waving a big stick over their heads, which he is undoubtedly doing, is he taking measures to ensure that the right of human beings to seek refuge is being protected? I will listen with great interest to the Minister when he replies to the debate on Second Stage.

Our history as a migrant people, where millions of our ancestors fled economic disaster, political oppression and so on and found their way into most corners of the world, should make us a particularly generous nation when it comes to understanding the terrible human trauma that lies behind those stories which bring people to our shores. The role of any humane immigration policy must be to assist those at risk, those who are fleeing and attempting to find a new life in this country. We should be generous in this regard. I do not contribute to the glib assertion which is sometimes thrown out that we are an extremely racist people, that Ireland is a racist country and that the majority of people are racist. These facts are completely false. I believe a minority among us are racist but the majority of people are not racist. It is an insult to people to make these kinds of broad assertions.

The majority of people are generous and wish to be generous to those who seek refuge in this State which is supposed to be responsible to them. It is, therefore, particularly reprehensible when elected Members of the national Parliament stand up and use their position to pander to that small minority who are racist, xenophobic and deny the history of this nation over generations and centuries. It is reprehensible that we had a type of mean-spirited, mean-minded racist outburst from two or three Members of the Dáil. It is a source of scandal to me that these Deputies were not immediately ejected, expelled and cast out from their political parties as a signal to the world that this country stands for toleration and integration of people of different cultures, races, creeds, colours and so on.

The Government should look at this issue and do more to create a better environment and, in so doing, enrich our society for those who come here to seek refuge. Those who are waiting a determination on their asylum applications should be given the right to work. I have repeatedly heard these people say that they do not want to be in receipt of the paltry State handouts they receive. They want to work and earn their keep and this should be granted.

Mr. English

I agree with most of what is contained in the Bill. It resembles a Bill before the House of Commons. I believe the legislation will help the problem but I would like it to do more. That is my job as an Opposition Deputy.

Travel companies and other organisations should not need the legislation to ensure that illegal or economic refugees without the proper paperwork are not allowed to arrive in this country. However, a case should be made for lone lorry drivers driving through ports without whose knowledge unwanted passengers may attach themselves to trucks while slow moving or stopped. One simply cannot see all that is happening from inside the cab of a truck while driving. The Bill will make such people more responsible and put the blame on them. The port authorities could be flexible and help out by checking these trucks before they board and after they exit ships to ensure determined asylum seekers have not attached themselves to the vehicles. This would make perfect sense. The Bill seeks to prevent indiscriminate people who ignore safety procedures and the law from smuggling foreigners into the country while robbing them of all their money. These criminal gangs and thugs must be stopped because they have no respect for human life.

If one is a minister in a national government, one must ask what caused the problem in the first instance. What brings these people to this country? What makes them leave their home and family to travel here? Why is it that in a world of plenty so many have nothing? Why does this problem exist? While we in this House cannot solve the problem on our own, we can show leadership.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 27 May 2003