Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 May 2003

Vol. 567 No. 7

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

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

The Minister must be called to reply not later than 12.45 p.m., therefore, approximately 50 minutes remain for the rest of the debate. Deputy English was in possession and he has 18 minutes remaining.

While I support the Bill I would like it to include further provisions. The question must be asked why we have asylum seekers in the first place and why people want to leave their own countries. Are we doing enough to solve the problems in this regard? If the alliance that went to Iraq, with the help of many governments, to topple a dictator turned its attention to world poverty and inequalities with the same vigour and money that was used in the Middle East, I would not be at all surprised if the numbers seeking asylum started steadily dropping.

I visited Slovakia recently where there is a major problem concerning the Roma people. Many of those people were leaving Slovakia and seeking asylum in other countries. That is only one example. If attention were turned to looking after those people in their own country, their seeking asylum in other countries would not be an issue. We must ask why these people want to leave their country in the first place and what we, as a country and a European member state, can do to prevent them wanting to do so. The political will to do this does not seem to exist for some reason. I am tempted in regard to Slovakia and many other countries to say that there is not enough oil involved so there is no real political interest, but this makes the case too simple. Political factors always seem to have a bearing.

That Bob Geldof must return to a famine-ridden Ethiopia 18 years after Live Aid proves this point. Eighteen years ago the world, under the leadership of this great man, said no to famine, but 18 years later we are back to square one. We must use our position on the world stage to champion the need to eliminate poverty worldwide and at home. This would be one of the main ways of addressing the problem of economic refugees.

I visited Ethiopia last September as part of an Oireachtas delegation. I went AWOL and wandered around by myself and met young people, most of whom, when they found out I was from Ireland and was a member of this Parliament, latched on to me and asked me to find out if there was any way I could get them a permit to live here. That is an example of the position in only one country and while the number of refugees from that country is not a problem here, a similar position prevails in many other countries. I am merely sharing that experience with Members.

The fortress Europe policy does not work. Of all the countries in the world we, in Ireland, know what famine is and what it can do to people. We should never forget that our families were asylum seekers too when they travelled on the famine ships to seek a life away from the Great Famine in Ireland.

If the Members and the Minister will bear with me, I want to extend this argument and ask the Government to rethink its asylum policy and include such policy provisions in this Bill. Current Government policies are having a negative effect on our attitude to racism in this country. The system we use to deal with asylum seekers and their entitlements is outdated. It often takes up to two years to process an application and the system involves too much paperwork and is shrouded in a veil of secrecy. This is leading to all non-nationals being classed as refugees who are sponging off the State, which is a dangerous untruth. We need a radical change in this policy now. Perhaps the current policy is simple and transparent but it is not clear to the average person on the street how the Government works in this area – we need a system which treats everyone fairly and gives hard-hit taxpayers value for their money.

Apart from this Bill, there seems to be no clear Government policy on this major issue or, if there is, members of Government are not telling anyone about it. Maybe the Government considers the Irish people to be like children and that information on everyday Government business is not our business or is dangerous to our health and so they will try anything, including repealing laws and imposing charges, to stop us from getting at the truth. This, coupled with the Government's unwillingness to take advice on the subject from people who work on the front line dealing with refugees on a daily basis and opting instead to listen to their own, often over-paid, out of touch spin doctors, will lead to a repeat of the problems encountered by our European neighbours. We must learn from the past or else we will repeat its mistakes. Many people from health boards, the Garda Síochána and other sectors have raised concerns with me about how asylum seekers and refugees are dealt with. They do not believe that their concerns are being listened to and although they are passing on their comments, they do not believe they are going up the line. I ask that we broaden our thinking on that issue.

The direction taken by the Government in dealing with people who arrive here seeking work is wrong. If a job needs doing and if the skill required for it can be provided by a person who wishes for asylum reasons to reside in our country, we should let that person at it and sort out the paperwork later. Such people should be given temporary work permits until their applications are processed or assessed. If we do not have the skilled workers or expertise available in our own workforce, why not allow these people to work on public projects such as the construction or maintenance of road and rail projects such as the Navan-Dublin project or canal? They could do so in return for their keep and a wage to start a new life either here or in their land of origin, depending on the results of their asylum application.

Many of these people who are waiting for their applications to be dealt with have called to my office during the past year since I was elected to this House although they did not call when I was a councillor. They bring all their paperwork and forms and ask me to help out and to do what I can for them. Many of these people want to and are prepared to work. Three qualified pharmacists called to my office during the year. I work with a pharmacist on the council and he has told me that he cannot get anyone to fill in for him when he wants to take a day off. There is a shortage of pharmacists, yet people who are qualified pharmacists must wait a year or two to be allowed to work or to be sent home. That is a crazy situation and it is bothering people because it is costing us money to keep these people here. The current position is fuelling racism – racism on the basis of begrudgery, as I call it, rather than racism on the basis of colour.

Recent Government cutbacks have ensured there will be no shortage of this work available and it will continue to be available until this Government is run out of office. A job completed benefits us all. With so much work needing to be done in this country and with no right thinking person wishing to be idle or out of work for long periods, it is a national scandal and a human tragedy that the system is preventing people from working.

The reason I asked for more issues to be addressed in this Bill is that a high majority of Irish people believe that the Government's policy on immigrants is to maintain or pay people to do nothing while their paperwork is being processed. That is what the people believe. This is leading Irish citizens to believe, with some justification, that they are being cheated in some way and that the ordinary taxpayer of this country is forking out vast sums of money to keep people in a certain lifestyle. Secrecy in Government will lead to the spread of resentment and mistruth. I say secrecy because the Government is not doing enough to explain the true position to the people. This is very dangerous, as any form of resentment can too easily lead to racism, which is wrong and is a major problem in this country. I come across it every day of the week. I do not know if the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform holds clinics as do other Ministers but, if he does, I am sure he, too, encounters that.

I certainly do hold clinics.

I am delighted to hear that. When people call to my clinic seeking assistance, the first thing they say is that if they were from Romania, they would get whatever it is they are seeking. This type of belief must be stamped out. That is not true, but that is what people say because information in this area is not clear and people do not understand the overall Government policy in this area. More should be done in that regard and I thought this Bill might present an opportunity to make it clear what everyone is entitled to.

Conditions for the spread of this attitude can be fostered when people feel hard done by State agencies which they perceive are wasting money. State agencies can be single-minded in their approach – many do not consider it a priority to keep the taxpayers properly informed regarding the costs of dealing with the large amount of foreign nationals who wish to settle here and do not clearly tell us what each individual who makes a claim for asylum is entitled to and actually receives. Very often they only receive what they are entitled to under European law, the same as any citizen of this country would receive if he or she lived abroad.

This week the chief executive officer of the North Eastern Health Board went on radio and blamed refugees for the mess in which the health service in my region finds itself. He used the amount of money it is costing to house and look after them as the excuse in that regard. I do not believe he is racist or meant his comments to be interpreted in that way; I am sure he meant to say that such provision has used up billions of euro of the budgetary allocation that was not planned for a few years ago. The way in which his comments were perceived made people very angry and is causing racism. That is of serious concern to me.

Information is power and so is the lack of it in the wrong hands or the hands of those who are misinformed. We have all heard the stories that asylum seekers receive cars, luxury apartments, large food baskets and special hair treatments paid for by taxpayers through different State bodies and health boards. While the truth of asylum seekers' State entitlements is different, the lack of real Government figures or statements on this allows these fairytale stories to persist and take root. Why is this the case? Is the truth so bad that the Government believes that the people do not deserve or need to hear it? If this situation is allowed to persist, it can only have one conclusion and that will be a sad one for us all – an increase in racism.

How the Civil Service and justice system deal with asylum seekers has also become the subject of myth, half truths and damn lies as the absence of real and clear information from the Government persists. Such is the extent of this absence that I am led to believe that some of the good people who work in these institutions are beginning to believe the myths. In some cases this is leading to a perceived imbalance in the form of unfair or special treatment for some. This must cease immediately for the sake of us all.

We must have an impartial system that does not recognise colour or creed, something that should be the cornerstone of our democracy. The level scales of justice and equality must never be tilted in any direction. As the saying goes, it is not good enough that it be done, it must be seen to be done. I am sure the Minister is happy it is being done, but it must be seen to be done, and that is where the problem lies.

I blame the lack of Government information and guidelines on this subject. The Government should immediately come clean on the issue and tell us in clear terms what it costs the country to maintain current Government policy, or lack of it, on immigration. It is one of the most pressing issues facing the country. Is the Bill an attempt to hide the cost? If it is, it will not work because change is needed.

It is clear what the Bill aims to achieve, as is its policy. The Government should adopt other clear precise policies that we can examine and with which we can identify. It should print clear, precise and freely available information on what an asylum seeker is entitled to by law under the Irish and European welfare systems when he or she arrives in the country. It should make it clear to the people that not every coloured or non-white person in the country is a refugee but is quite possibly a legal, hard-working student or a tax paying professional adding a great deal to the country and who can quite possibly afford a house, a car, new clothes or a hairstyle. People who can and are willing to work should be allowed to do so. It should be made plain that the same rules apply to nationals and non-nationals alike.

The Government should break the habit of a lifetime and listen to advice for a change. Let us get real value for money. Will the Minister examine the Bill to see if what I have suggested can be added to it to clarify matters, obtain better value for money for taxpayers and assist the country to be a more moderate, multicultural society, not a racist country into which it is turning rapidly?

I am not an expert on immigration but I was interested in speaking on the Bill in my capacity as tourism spokesperson. One development I have noticed in that role is the reports of different publications about this country. I have already quoted in the Dáil the Lonely Planet guide to Dublin which describes Ireland as a filthy, racist country. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly racist and this is partially the fault of the Government through its policies of not promoting a more inclusive society and not having a more sensible view on immigration.

As I said, I am a beginner when it comes to immigration issues and racism, but sometimes being a beginner means one does not have inherent prejudices. My only inherent prejudice is that I am similar to other Irish people who have racist tendencies, but I try not to have them. Even discriminating positively towards a foreign person is a form of inverse racism. The sooner we treat people, no matter where they are from, as people and recognise their rights, the better.

The Amnesty International report on this country which was released recently stated that it was concerned about racist violence, harassment of ethnic minorities and the inadequacy of legislation in this area. Amnesty called for an increased, independent monitoring body to investigate and monitor racism and discrimination. There is talk about the establishment of the refugee advisory board, which I welcome, but it does not go far enough.

The report went on to say that for the first time asylum seekers were detained during 2002 under the 1996 Refugee Act. The Garda Síochána detained large numbers of rejected asylum seekers in July and the Government announced plans to increase forcible deportations. In May of last year, the Bill under discussion, which includes provisions to penalise carriers allowing asylum seekers into the country, lapsed because of the general election. It has been reintroduced and is being discussed now.

My colleague, Deputy Boyle, mentioned the Human Rights Commission in his contribution and its submission to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights on aspects of the Bill. The commission stated in its submission that, with the UNHCR and others working with refugees and asylum seekers, it believed there is a number of areas where the Bill may breach important international protocols, including Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Among the points made by the commission were that section 2 of the Bill proposes to penalise transporters bringing in aliens without proper travel documentation or entry permits. The Bill does not foresee any offences related to asylum, but the commission comments on that. I will deal with that later.

The Bill introduces a number of measures, such as the determination of withdrawal in relation to applicants who have failed to comply with procedural requirements and applicants who have voluntarily withdrawn their applications, determination of refusal to grant refugee status in respect of claims deemed to be withdrawn, allocation of powers of prioritisation of cases to the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Chairman of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to speed up the processing of asylum claims, and provision between the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and the UNHCR for the resettlement of mandate refugees.

The most important point the Human Rights Commission made related to liability of carriers. While carrier sanctions might be a legitimate immigration tool, such measures might also interfere with the ability of persons at risk of persecution to gain access to safety. States that have recourse to carrier sanctions should implement them in a manner consistent with international rights and refugee protection principles, notably, as Deputy Boyle said, Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which, as the Minister is no doubt aware, accords each person the right to seek asylum, and Article 31 of the 1951 United Nations refugee convention which recognises that some refugees might enter a country of refuge without proper documentation. Circumstances might prevent them from obtaining valid paperwork before fleeing. Obviously a refugee who is being persecuted does not have his or her paperwork together. He or she is not a tourist but a refugee, and that is something that should be taken into account.

Article 33 of the convention prohibits states from imposing sanctions on people who are forced to flee serious threats to their lives or liberty and who cannot arrange for passports, visas or other documentation prior to flight. By preventing asylum seekers with inadequate documentation from travelling to Ireland, the Government risks contravening Article 33 of the convention which also prohibits the expulsion or refoulement of refugees to situations of danger.

Amnesty International cautions against the implementation of the main thrust of the Bill – carrier sanctions – because such restrictions will only drive asylum seekers into the hands of traffickers and smugglers and will lead to other dangerous modes of transport being used. I would be interested in the Minister's opinion on this if he has not already stated it. Such sanctions, Amnesty states, will not stop people coming to the country.

We have seen the use of containers which have put the lives of asylum seekers, refugees and economic migrants at risk, and that is precisely because of measures such as those in the Bill. Other EU countries have had similar laws for years and their experience demonstrates that carrier sanctions do not decrease the number of people arriving with improper documentation or hinder the efforts of traffickers and smugglers. If the Government introduces these carrier sanctions, more men, women and children will die in circumstances such as those endured by the Kurds who arrived in Wexford a few years ago. While these people thought they were going to Britain, they tragically ended up in Ireland. These carrier sanctions will only add to the problems.

Section 2(7) states, "A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of €3,000." In many cases people will not have any documentation. How will officials be able to tell at source if a person is a refugee or an asylum seeker without giving them a chance to prove that fact? In many cases, people are turned away without being assessed.

I now want to make some general points about the type of legislation that can be introduced to make Ireland a little less racist. Constituents often comment that refugees or asylum seekers receive a €3,000 social welfare cheque to purchase a car. No matter how much one explains otherwise, the myth is being perpetuated. I raise this point as I hope the media will pick up on this and nail this myth once and for all. The Department has nailed this myth on several occasions and I hope the Minister will help to nail it now. A considerable number of constituents from various social backgrounds believe that favourable treatment is given to people of a darker skin colour. Obviously those with refugee status that have been granted rent allowance have the same entitlements as anyone else and this is as it should be. Asylum seekers do not have the same entitlements.

There needs to be clarity about the diversity of people from various countries and cultures that are working and studying here and are not trying to defraud the State of its social welfare largesse. I do not know why anyone would want to come here given the lack of progress in the provision of social welfare and education. That is a debate for another day. I suggest that an information campaign be undertaken outlining the diversity that exists in the country and nailing some of the common myths such as those I outlined earlier. One person heard about cheques for purchasing cars from an "Auntie Nellie" who knew someone working in the social welfare office. This is how racism is perpetuated.

Racism is also perpetuated by draconian measures such as this which penalise carriers. This will not lead to an increase in the number of genuine refugees coming here or a decrease in those that are less genuine. It will drive the issue underground and lead to more illegal trafficking. In many cases, people who come here do not realise they are coming to Ireland, they just land here. As we have seen, sometimes they are dead when they get here. Does the Minister want more blood on his hands? More clarity needs to be given.

Another issue that gets on people's goat is the timeframe.

If the Deputy is calling for a responsible debate, why talk about me having blood on my hands?

I welcome the chance for discourse. The Minister is responsible for this area and if someone dies due to a lack of proper enforcement of the law, or lack of proper laws, it is ultimately up to him.

Deputy Sargent got into trouble for talking about this regarding Iraq and the Deputy should stop.

The Minister advocated Operation Hyphen where many men ended up in squad cars.

I like the banter.

I thank Deputy Deasy for joining this.

I welcome debate.

Does the Minister have a response to my comment?

I would like to see if the Minister has a response to any measures that would process more quickly the claims of asylum seekers. If the claims are properly processed in a short period of time, we would not have people put into centres where they are excluded for a period of time and do not have the opportunity to learn the language and integrate into society if they are found to be genuine asylum seekers.

A couple of years ago the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, said she would welcome 200,000 people to this country as there was plenty of work for all and the economy was booming. I assume she meant 200,000 white, Anglo-Saxon people—

This is disgraceful.

—as the policies of the Government have not done anything to diminish racism.

The Deputy's speech is tinged with racism.

It is irresponsible.

I am asking the Minister to put something in motion that will tackle racism.

The Deputy is waffling.

Deputy Gogarty has the floor.

People are coming to me and pointing to coloured people that live near them and saying that they are sponging off the State. Many of these people are actually working here or are genuine refugees. Why do people have these prejudices?

It is not because of anything I say, it is probably because of remarks the Deputy makes.

Absolutely not. I have already described myself as having racist tendencies no more than anyone else. We all have these tendencies; they are ingrained in us.

The Deputy is speaking for himself.

As Ireland becomes more multicultural we will hopefully learn to deal with this better.

The Deputy should not talk about blood on my hands.

The Minister should not exaggerate. I am saying he could have blood on his hands. The Minister could play a more proactive and positive role toward multiculturalism and recognise the various ethnic groups and the difference between people working here, refugees and asylum seekers.

Does the Deputy recognise the difference?

It is not coming out. Why do people have this perception?

The Minister should allow the Deputy to speak. The Minister is good at lecturing.

I like to hear the Minister lecturing. It is good as he is quoted in the Official Report and I do not mind being quoted in it either. As I said, I am not an expert on immigration policy. I am an ordinary Deputy from a constituency that has a variety of socio-economic groups. I am retelling what people have said to me. This Bill does nothing to address the issue of processing claims more quickly. Nor does it do anything to ensure that refugees and asylum seekers will come here and be safer.

Has the Deputy read the Bill?

Yes. However, I am not an expert in this area. Deputy Cuffe is an expert in this area and he has already made a statement and proposed amendments. While I cannot be an expert in every aspect of policy, I am an expert on what my constituents are telling me. While my constituents have what they see as genuine fears, these are often fuelled by ignorance. This ignorance needs to be addressed. While the Minister may not have created racist Ireland – perhaps it was always there waiting for immigrants to come – it is his responsibility to tackle racism head-on and welcome the increasingly multicultural nature of this society. Perhaps legislation could be changed, in consultation with other Ministers, so that people from outside the EU can come here and work if they so wish. The issue of asylum seekers and refugees is another matter. If a message was sent out that people from outside the EU can come and work here, although not be entitled to social welfare payments, they could fill jobs that are not being filled. Even though the economy is going down the Suwannee thanks to the negative policies of this PD-Fianna Fáil Government, there are jobs that are not being filled because people are not willing to do them. While we already know what Deputy Harney has said about education and a highly-skilled workforce, I will not go into it now.

The main bone of contention my party has with this Bill relates to carrier liability. Will the Minister propose another Bill to deal with immigrants and asylum seekers in a more positive frame? Is he prepared to get rid of carrier liability given that EU experience has shown that it does nothing to deter trafficking and may lead to more innocent people dying in their attempts to escape persecution? It might also affect economic migrants and one cannot blame them for wanting to come to a rich country like Ireland.

We need to see some common sense. That is why I asked if the Minister wanted blood on his hands. I can foresee more tragedies involving containers. Rather than telling me off for not being justice spokesperson and not having a thorough knowledge of immigration issues, I would prefer if the Minister would address me as an ordinary Deputy raising views on behalf of his constituents. Perhaps he will try to do something about the inherent racism in this society, as it will affect issues that are in my portfolio. From the point of view of my portfolio, it will affect areas such as tourism and education.

Will the Minister take a positive approach? My colleagues, Deputies Boyle and Cuffe, have already gone into more detail on the Bill. I have reiterated that detail, but it is also important, more generally, that we take a positive approach to tackling racism here.

I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words on this legislation. Along with a number of people in the House, I hope the debate on immigration, which requires regulation and containment in law, can be dealt with in a civilised manner. We need to be very careful in the House not to give a bad example. I listened to some of the speeches from the Government side in the not too distant past and to say they were inflammatory and racist would be an understatement. I am not pointing my finger at the Minister sitting opposite; I am merely pointing out the seriousness of what we may inadvertently or otherwise lead ourselves into. I hope in the course of the creation of this legislation we will always be extremely careful that nothing we say or do could be seen as a lead towards racism or could encourage the racist tendencies of some people.

I do not accept that this is a racist nation. It sometimes suits public representatives and other agents to cast themselves as such in order to achieve popularity with certain elements of the electorate. Some of the things I have heard in the House in the past six months have made me feel ashamed that we were participating in a national parliamentary debate on an issue which is highly sensitive and highly charged and is regarded by most people in most countries as an area in which we have to be politically correct. I am not saying we need to go overboard or that we should flood the country with unlimited numbers of undocumented visitors. It is a simple fact of life that we either do the thing according to the rules, or we keep our mouths shut.

This legislation deals with the question of licensed carriers and penalties. I am not certain that the penalties as proposed will challenge the unfortunate, highly illegal and disgraceful practice by forces outside the State, possibly with the help of some inside the State, of herding innocent people into wagons and bringing them long distances, sometimes with catastrophic results, including, on more than one occasion, loss of life. This has happened not only here but in the UK and in other jurisdictions.

I hope the provisions in the Bill will deal with this and will not militate against the victims, but I am not certain they will. It is obvious that mafia types have set up a practice, in Eastern Europe and beyond, whereby they undertake to move unfortunate, poor people to different countries. These people, who have no influence at all, feel that by paying exorbitant amounts of money to a so-called agency, they are investing their money in a good cause and ensuring that the agency will look after them. Nothing could be further from the truth because the only things these people want to look after are their bank accounts and they do not care two pins whether the unfortunate victims come out of the wagons alive. In fact, it would be as easy for them if they did not.

I know the Minister is fully aware of this appalling practice, which it should be possible to stamp out relatively easily. Putting responsibility on the carriers should help. However, we should not forget that if the organisation responsible for this transportation is big enough, it will take the risk of the penalty and of the carrier being caught. In this context, I hope the Department will engage in ongoing dialogue with its colleagues at the various ports of embarkation. There are a number of very sensitive areas, in Europe and elsewhere, in which we know people are herded together and brought on to containers, only to pop up in Waterford or Swansea. That is one of the things I hope the Minister and his Department have adequately researched and made provision for.

Section 2(3) states:

Where a vehicle arrives in the State from a place outside the State the carrier concerned shall, if so requested by an immigration officer, furnish him or her with–

(a) a list specifying the name and nationality of each person carried on board the vehicle . . .

What if the carrier does not mention any people at all? What if he or she is carrying dry goods or tea or anything else? How do we follow that up? We could go back to the source. I am anxious that an effort is made to ensure that wherever there is the possibility in foreign ports of a change in cargo, much time and energy should be put into liaising with the local police, although I fully understand that the local police might not necessarily be the best people to talk to in those circumstances. As we know, some European countries, including some EU countries, have a very laid-back attitude towards the application of the rules when it comes to facilitating transports of illegal immigrants through their jurisdictions. I do not want to mention their names, but I am sure the Minister opposite is fully aware of them. It is well known that even within the EU, not all police forces co-operate to the extent that they should in stamping out organised crime. This section deals with an aspect of organised crime and I hope it is sufficient to meet requirements.

The question of administration is becoming very difficult. All of us, in the course of our weekly clinics, meet non-nationals who wish to have their visas extended and so on. The sad thing is that many of them have been here for five or six years, yet they are very concerned that they might be asked to leave. In most cases they have jobs and want to hold on to them – this is an old hobby-horse of mine – and sometimes they end up going underground because of a fear that should not exist at all. They simply disappear. This is due, incidentally, to the utterances of some public figures. I know there are people who have a tendency to operate underground, but genuine people have also done this, although there was no necessity for them to do so because they were in the State quite legitimately.

Section 5 deals with the advisory board and the subsequent parts amend section 19(2) of the original. Section 5(b) forbids the publication of material likely to lead members of the public to identify a person as an asylum applicant unless the consent of that person and of the Minister has been obtained. That is a good idea and an important development. As I mentioned earlier – other Members have mentioned this also – it may be expedient for a local political person or other public figure to identify, by virtue of his or her colour or name, a person in the locality as a refugee or an asylum seeker. That section could be useful.

On passports and visas, politicians often spend a great deal of time addressing issues of extensions to visas and so on and the person involved then disappears off the scene for no other reason but that he or she was worried about his or her position or because of something said to them. People in this jurisdiction are also giving advice to non-nationals which is often incorrect. We must be concerned with those legitimately employed here. Telling such people on a Monday morning that they are no longer required and that they should go home is unfair. It is highly unlikely such a person will travel the 5,000 or 6,000 miles required or that he or she could afford to do so.

Will adequate measures be taken to deal with the abuse of people coming into this jurisdiction by those who are liable or culpable in leading them here? We have already dealt with the issue of carriers. What happens to such people when they arrive here? It is obvious people have been transported here at huge cost by so-called "consultants"– everybody is a consultant nowadays – who are paid particularly well. There is in some jurisdictions, for some unknown reason, a great reverence and respect for people who set themselves up in such a business. People trust them and pay them enormous sums of money on the understanding that everything has been organised for their transportation to a new jurisdiction. Their belief that they need have no worry is the real killer and we are all aware of the consequences in that regard.

Reference has been made to finger-printing and optical recognition. I am a little worried about heading in that direction. Optical recognition is invasive, insidious and dangerous. I am aware this system operates in many jurisdictions but it is not our way of doing things. I totally reject such a notion and ask that the Minister bear in mind the direction in which we could find ourselves heading if we go down that road. It is worrying that a person's movements can be detected and monitored by virtue of his or her having looked into a particular camera. I, personally, am not concerned about it but many people strenuously object to it. The alleged reason for this is to aid in the fight against modern terrorism. We are being led towards an acceptance of that way of thinking but I hope we do not take that route which could have serious human and civil rights implications.

Regulation is necessary and laudable. The Bill could be improved upon and I hope the Minister will be amenable to accepting reasonable amendments from the Opposition.

Acting Chairman

I call Deputy Howlin and remind him that the Minister must be called upon to reply at 12.45 p.m.

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute, even for ten minutes, to the debate on this Bill. I have a certain familiarity with the Minister's officials who are aware of my views on this issue from the raft of legislation I dealt with as Opposition spokesperson on justice during the lifetime of the previous Dáil. I am frustrated by the lack of joined-up thinking in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform each time it comes up with a proposal in this area. I had hoped that a change of Minister would bring about a change of policy but that does not seem to be the case. It is simply more of the same.

The approach of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in all the legislation on this issue has been bitty; it has been one of "what is today's issue that needs tweaking?" In all such legislation there has always been, on Committee or Report Stage, a new element bolted on to respond to another pressure point in a crisis. Pressure in this regard has diminished somewhat from that which prevailed in earlier days when the number of asylum seekers here increased from a couple of hundred to several thousands a year. There was an element of panic when the structures were not in place. Now that they are, one would have thought we would have a calmer and more reflective approach to what is one of the most difficult – I readily acknowledge that – and thorny social issues facing us as a society.

I have repeatedly said in this House that our response in our time here to this new phenomenon will set the character of Ireland into the future. In the beginning, I said there were three separate elements involved which were constantly jumbled up in the approach of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The right thing to do was to separate the three substantial issues and set about a strategic approach to each that was fair, humane, met our international requirements and was unique in terms of Ireland's character. Part of that was an understanding of the need for societal change and an accommodation thereof. The first element related to dealing with asylum seekers. We have, by and large, put in place decent mechanisms to deal with the backlog. My initial proposal was to set a timeframe of six months as the maximum time within which to deal with asylum applications. In order to do so, I proposed, when the backlog stood at 10,000, to give some level of recognition to those already here by introducing a green card system to regularise their situation, reduce the backlog and thereby deal with asylum seekers on a case by case basis. We would not then have the situation which had existed for years where people were coming to Ireland because they knew it would be years before their case would be dealt with and they could well establish themselves and have children here. At that time, Irish law facilitated an application for citizenship for a person born here and residency for his or her parents. I regret that that approach was not accepted.

By and large, current mechanisms are working reasonably well, at least in the processing stage. I am not sure if the final stage, dealing with deportation, is working as well. I would be interested to hear the current statistics on the number of failed asylum applications which have gone through the entire appeals process and how many people actually leave the jurisdiction by warrant of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I dare say many simply vanish into society, some of whom will go to the United Kingdom and come back here again.

The second issue relates to immigration. The bulk of people I dealt with – particularly when Rosslare was used as a gateway for asylum applicants – were east Europeans from applicant countries wishing to join the European Union and they were, unashamedly, economic migrants. These skilled, competent and able people bluntly told me they could not live in their home country because they could not subsist on the wages available there.

We have not had a rational immigration strategy. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment issued work permits on a bubble basis. They were not attuned to the skills base of people or to a rational, overarching migration and immigration policy that set quotas on a skills basis, such as countries like Canada and Australia implement, and invited applications from potential immigrants. Under such a system people would not have to arrive in Rosslare or Dublin and seek asylum under the Geneva Convention. They could honestly claim to be an economic migrant and apply under that heading. That was never done in a coherent and rational way. Now we see the immigration issue as something that can be turned off when there are economic pressures in the economy. The Tánaiste actually boasts that she can turn off this tap to remove the pressure.

I regret the lack of an integrated, coherent strategy in the bitty proposals that have come from the Government in the past four or five years. The third element in the strategy I mapped out in the Labour Party document, "Ending the Chaos", in November 2000 was the issue of integration and the need for coherent, strategic support for communities which were taken aback by the change in the culture that surrounded them. That is perfectly understandable and not racist. People were fearful of different ethnic practices, language and colour. We needed to address those needs, to be supportive of communities and to provide resources for integration but we did not do that. We paid lip service to it and conducted surveys and analyses but, in essence, nothing else. We allowed ghettos to form in different parts of this city by not providing a proper integrational mechanism. These mistakes were made by other countries decades ago. We could not learn from their mistakes or put in place a strategic approach that met these demands in a coherent way.

The latest in the raft of proposals in this area is strict carrier liability. Again, it is the approach of those who simply see asylum seekers not as people every developed, free and democratic society has an obligation to respect but rather as a burden we should try to off-load, discourage and keep out of Ireland. If people are genuine asylum seekers, we say "Let them get their asylum elsewhere; let us make it as difficult as possible for them to arrive on this little island and thank God it is an island and there are no direct flights from Third World countries." The rigid implementation of the Dublin Convention means these people will receive asylum status elsewhere. This is part of the same logic which states that we will keep the barriers to Ireland as high as possible, we will give lip service at international fora to the notion of democracy and the rights of the oppressed and asylum seekers but we will not, in a structured way, work proactively to ensure Ireland, a rich and developed country in the 21st century, carries its load.

I remember the lovely sunny Saturday afternoon when I received a call in my clinic to go down to the business park on the outskirts of Wexford town. In the immediate aftermath of the Kurdish nationals being found, I spoke to the traumatised police officers and, when I went to the hospital, to the health staff who dealt with them. We do not want a recurrence of that and we need to structure our law in a humane way which will, as far as practicable, prevent it.

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is a humane man and his predecessor, as I often said, is also a humane man. The officials who work in this area are good humane people. However, we do not have the joined-up thinking and the structured policy that would constitute a unique, genuine, humane and generous response which would characterise a changed Ireland and redound to our benefit and credit in the years to come.

I thank the Deputies who participated in this lengthy debate which covered many subjects. A number of contributions, representing varying opinions, went in opposite directions. Deputy Ring, Deputy Gogarty and others, for example, asserted that Ireland is a racist society. I do not believe that. In fact, I assert the opposite and I make common cause with the Deputies, including Deputy Durkan and Deputy Higgins, who contradicted it. Ireland is not a racist society.

Ireland is a society which, as Deputy Howlin pointed out, is confronted with rapid change in circumstances in which it was not accustomed to multiculturalism, immigration and the like. It suddenly found itself sucked into a situation which many of us did not anticipate until it was upon us. However, looking at the streets throughout the country, the way the immigrant populations have assimilated into our community and the general attitudes in public and private discourse, I believe this country has been remarkably free from racism. There have been isolated attacks with a racist motive but people who attack other people and kick them on the ground, people who get drunk and use bottles on other people and people who carry knives with which they threaten others are not usually the most gentle or discerning elements of our population. However, apart from some isolated incidents of racist violence, the vast majority of people who have come here find this country a friendly place and find that the people of this country are well disposed towards them.

Even those who are reticent about immigration as a phenomenon are generally free from racism as their primary motivation. We have not had race riots, thank God, and I hope we never will. We have not had groups of youths from a community assembling to threaten or use violence on other groups. We have been free of that so let us keep our comments about ourselves in proportion. We have equality laws which are among the most advanced in the world. Ireland cannot be characterised as a racist society.

Travel guides are free to decide what they wish about Ireland and they can do it from any perspective on the ideological spectrum. If they wish to describe Ireland as a filthy, racist society, they are entitled to do so. We live in a democracy where there is freedom of speech. However, if something appears in print and falls into the hands of Members of the House, it does not mean it is true. This country has had racial issues for a long time. My constituency of Dublin South-East, for example, from the 1890s to the 1970s had a significant Jewish minority and there were racist, anti-Semitic aspects to Irish society when the Jewish community was in its heyday. Unfortunately, in recent times the numbers in the Jewish community in Ireland have declined. It could not be said, however, that Ireland was a racist society or that it was characterised by brutality of the kind seen in other societies which are historically described as racist.

We have not seen the emergence of a far right party in Irish politics.

Other than the Progressive Democrats.

I do not accept that. We have not seen the emergence of people who are campaigning or posturing in a negative way on race issues with any great success. Áine Ní Chonaill's Immigration Control Platform does not seem to be a mass movement and, whether it is due to its inherent organisational problem or whatever, it does not seem to have attracted huge support.

Our media, for that matter, seem to be multicultural and inclusive in their approach to all these issues. There are very few instances where one can say that Ireland has a media which reflects a racist society. I do not think that is true. I say those things, not out of a sense of complacency—

Will the Minister give way for a moment?

Certainly.

I agree with the Minister that Ireland is not a racist society, but he will agree that it is not an assimilated or integrated society and that we have been woefully lacking in measures to bring about assimilation of our recent immigrant population?

Broadly, I would agree that we have been deficient in our assimilation policies, but that is not because this society is racist, it is because this society is struggling to grapple with an unforeseen problem.

No, but that could bring about racism.

I was going to make the further point that there is a great tendency to ascend moral pulpits, particularly on this issue, and to say that somehow to believe that I have some moral insight into the issue which other unthinking conservative reactionary people do not have, that I understand Third World suffering in a way that other Members of this House do not, that I understand what it is to be "a black person", quite frequently, is the tone of voice whereas you do not seem to understand this at all. There is a great sense of moral superiority on these issues. There are people in this House who feel that they alone have some unique insight into the issues which underlie all the public debate here and that they are simply not shared, not experienced, not understood by uncaring Neanderthals on the other side of the debate. That, I believe, is way off the mark. The vast majority of Members of this House and the other House see the problem in all its complexity and see the human side to every single aspect of it.

It has been said here that the Government is not doing enough to promote interculturalism, inclusive approaches and the like, but the Government is doing a great deal. It has got to the point where the media are getting tired of the constant efforts that the Government is making to endorse inclusive equality measures and multicultural measures. One would want to see the budget that is expended on this matter. One would want to see the number of occasions Ministers, including myself, attend to promote and give public sanction and support to initiatives being taken at every level in society. One would want to see the resources that are spent on advertising campaigns, leaflets and voluntary groups – NGOs – who are working in this area. Right across the board, huge resources are put into this.

It is not working.

Huge amounts of resources are put into it, to the point where if I were to attend some equality initiative taken by Dublin Bus, for instance, launched in the Equality Authority, the journalists would stand outside the door and report carefully what I do or do not say about third level fees or whatever—

The Intoxicating Liquor Bill.

—but they would not bother going in to see what happens at the event itself because it is hackneyed—

Will the Minister give way?

No, I have limited time.

Are they working? There is no sign of them working.

Yes, they are working.

Racist attacks are on the increase. They are not working.

I am satisfied that the measures we are taking are working, but I want to make the point equally—

They should be reviewed.

—and it is a point that must be stated in public, that there is also another side to this, that if we conduct our debate on this issue on the basis of unreality or intellectual dishonesty, we will leave behind a considerable section of Irish public opinion.

Who is the Minister—

I am not suggesting that anybody in this House is doing it, I am merely saying—

Then why is the Minister saying it?

The Deputy should let me finish. If we, for instance, say that migration equals asylum seeking, as happened many times in this debate, so often that I am tired of receiving notes pointing this out to me, that many Deputies—

That is—

—not Deputy Howlin – are confusing migration and asylum seeking, and using the words interchangeably in the course of debate. If we allow ourselves to confuse those two issues, we will make a very serious mistake. Every time I have spoken on this subject, I have emphasised – I do so again today in response to Deputy Gogarty's invitation – that the vast majority of people in our community who are not of Irish ethnic extraction and who are of different skin colour or different language to ourselves are here legally and properly, at our invitation, and are playing a very useful role in Irish society They have come here to play a role in our economy, for which we are all grateful and which we value very substantially. The vast majority of foreign people in our country have come here on that basis. I always say that because I always want to make it clear that whenever there are steps to be taken in relation to asylum seeking as a phenomenon, they are not directed at immigrants in our community and they have no relation to them as a group.

Deputy Gogarty hid behind the suggestion that he was a novice in this area, but it did not inhibit him in the slightest from throwing out wholly unjustified insults to, say, the Minister, Deputy Harney, that her immigration policy was seeking out white Anglo-Saxon Protestants to come to work in this country. Go to any hospital and see if that is true. Go to any take-away and see if it is true. Stand at any check-out in a supermarket and see if it is true. It is a disgrace that people come into this House – maybe it is constituency envy or something like that – and imply that the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment was conducting a migration policy based on a desire to recruit into Ireland white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. The poor Protestants must be even more insulted than anybody else by this.

The motto of the Ku Klux Klan.

It is implied that we are somehow engaged in seeking WASP-only immigrants into Ireland. That is a disgraceful remark to make.

That is just from the southside.

There was a look of mock horror and shock on the face of the Deputy when I challenged him on it. It is easy when you are in opposition and you are in your rickety moral pulpit, as he is, to throw out wholly unwarranted assaults on the Tánaiste's motivation in these matters.

The Minister is well practised at it. When he did not have a pulpit, he had a ladder.

I refute that kind of lazy-minded, top-of-the-head garbage posing as political debate.

Equally the Deputy said here that by introducing carrier liability I would have more blood on my hands, as if I had blood on them in the first place, in this regard. Second, the implication was that if you do what every other member state of the European Union not merely has done but is required by European law to do, which is to introduce carrier liability, you will have blood on your hands. I ask the House, what kind of rhetoric is that. The last time we heard it was from the Deputy's party leader, Deputy Sargent, on the Shannon stopover issue. It is over the top, ridiculous, wholly inflated political rhetoric and it is absurd.

Nobody has done more than the two Government parties to deal with illicit trafficking in people. We introduced legislation to deal with that issue a couple of years ago and it is being implemented continually. Very considerable Garda resources are going into making sure that people who are trafficking in people and exposing them to this kind of danger do not profit from their wholly immoral trade.

Deputy Durkan stated that we have to be careful about the civil liberties issues of things we do, and I agree with him. I do not support a national identity card of a mandatory kind because I believe that among the common law countries, and I am a fan of the common law countries—

Unless one is under 21.

No, it is not a national identity card, no more than a driver's licence is.

It is the same thing.

If we had a national identity card such as the continental model which anybody was obliged to produce on demand, it would irrevocably and irretrievably alter the relationship between the ordinary person and the police force. It would make the police the enemy rather than the friend of the people. There are privacy issues and civil liberties issues to be considered.

Deputy Deasy asked why there should be evidence of age cards for people under 21 entering pubs. I remind him that his very simple response to that was to prevent them from drinking at all under the age of 21.

The Minister is allowing the publicans to raise the age.

The Deputy should remember that he seriously suggested that all those under the age—

The Minister is the biggest hypocrite in the House. He has allowed the publicans to raise the drinking age and then he says that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order now, please. I must put the question.

The problem is that the Deputy is like Mrs. Mulligan's dog, he is a devil to give it but cannot take it.

The Minister is the biggest hypocrite in this House and now people know it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Deasy, you are being disorderly.

If the Deputy seriously criticises—

We are not taking this any more. The Minister is a hypocrite.

The Deputy should not attempt to shout me down.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order, please.

It suits the Deputy.

We will not take the Minister's hypocrisy any more. He is allowing publicans raise the age and he is giving me this lip.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister should be allowed to continue.

On a point of order, Sir. Despite the objections of the Labour Party there is an order of the House that the matter be put at 1 p.m. and the time is now two minutes past 1 p.m.

When we are dealing with under age drinking those of us on this side of the House have not come up with a proposal that nobody under the age of 21 should be allowed drink.

Why did the Minister allow the publicans to raise the age? He is the biggest hypocrite in this House.

Question put.

Ahern, Noel.Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Aylward, Liam.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Séamus.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Cassidy, Donie.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cowen, Brian.Cullen, Martin.Curran, John.de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Noel.Dempsey, Tony.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Finneran, Michael.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Gallagher, Pat The Cope.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Harney, Mary.Hoctor, Máire.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.

Kelleher, Billy.Kelly, Peter.Kirk, Séamus.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.Lenihan, Conor.McCreevy, Charlie.McDaid, James.McDowell, Michael.McEllistrim, Thomas.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.Ó Cuív, Éamon.O'Connor, Charlie.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donovan, Denis.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Malley, Fiona.O'Malley, Tim.Parlon, Tom.Power, Peter.Roche, Dick.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Dan.Wilkinson, Ollie.Wright, G.V.

Níl

Allen, Bernard.Boyle, Dan.Breen, Pat.Broughan, Thomas P.Bruton, Richard.Burton, Joan.Connaughton, Paul.Connolly, Paudge.Costello, Joe.Coveney, Simon.Cowley, Jerry.Crawford, Seymour.Crowe, Seán.Cuffe, Ciarán.Deasy, John.Durkan, Bernard J.

English, Damien.Enright, Olwyn.Ferris, Martin.Gilmore, Eamon.Gogarty, Paul.Gormley, John.Gregory, Tony.Harkin, Marian.Hayes, Tom.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael D.Hogan, Phil.Howlin, Brendan.Kehoe, Paul.Lynch, Kathleen. McCormack, Pádraic.

Níl–continued

McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Finian.McManus, Liz.Mitchell, Gay.Morgan, Arthur.Neville, Dan.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Penrose, Willie.

Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Eamon.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Sherlock, Joe.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Timmins, Billy.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher; Níl, Deputies Durkan and Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share