The Act of 1956 gave no guidance as to the precise meaning of the term "Irish association". The rules of the investment-based naturalisation scheme were administrative in character and form no part of the legislative regime underpinning the naturalisation process. I am on record as having described the scheme that operated as being dependent on a very loose, questionable interpretation of the 1956 Act. The possibility of that interpretation ever being availed of in the future will be put to bed as a result of the contents of this Bill. However, the fact that I hold that view cannot be construed as implying that naturalisation certificates were, by that very fact, not issued in good faith, or that they were automatically unlawful. To revoke a naturalisation certificate on the basis of my view of the law now would be fraught with legal difficulty.
In terms of an inquest of what happened during the scheme's lifespan, I remind Deputies of two things. The first is that that files relating to the naturalisation of 128 persons as a consequence of the scheme were sent to the Moriarty tribunal on 18 November 1998, on foot of an order dated 11 November 1998. These included all of the cases to which Deputy Jim O'Keeffe referred, which were dealt with in the first five years of the scheme's operation. Four policy files were sent on foot of the same order and in addition, files relating to a further 15 applications for naturalisation, which were not part of the scheme, were sent to the Moriarty tribunal on 15 March 1999, on foot of an order dated 3 March 1999. My Department continues to co-operate with the tribunal. That co-operation is recent and ongoing.
In addition, one of the first things I did on assuming office was to publish the report of the review group on investment-based naturalisation. A number of copies were placed at the time in the Oireachtas Library. I also issued a press statement, which was widely reported in the media and I ensured the report would be available on the Department's website. That report shows that the whole focus of activity after September 1996 was on the processing of applications that were pending or outstanding at that time. My immediate predecessor as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, accepted no new applications from investors as regards the scheme. However, once a scheme is in place a Minister must operate it fairly and bring it to an orderly conclusion. That was a difficulty faced by successive Ministers for Justice in the context of the winding up operation which went on from that period.
Several Deputies criticised our immigration policies and procedures, some going so far as to claim, mistakenly, that there is no immigration policy. I acknowledge that there is a need for comprehensive immigration and residence legislation and there is a commitment within An Agreed Programme for Government to that effect. I have already stated that I intend to launch a discussion document on that legislation in the near future and I am also committed to bringing forward proposals in this regard in 2005. I also point out that my predecessor as Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, on 13 June 2001, launched a public consultation document on immigration policy. It is interesting to note that no party in this House and many of the commentators who criticised immigration policy, provided observations on Deputy O'Donoghue's document. The result of that consultation process are available for all to see on the Department's website.
I do not accept, however, that the absence of such legislation is the major difficulty facing our immigration services or our immigrant community. New legislation is not a prerequisite for building on the policies already in place. I consider it important to draw a distinction between immigration policies, which are the prerogative of the Government of the day, on the one hand, and the legislative framework through which such policies are implemented, on the other. New immigration laws do not necessarily mean new policies and the converse applies, new immigration policies do not necessarily mean new laws. Neither is it true that immigration policy cannot develop in the absence of new legislation. An interesting case in point is the Refugee Act, which was enacted in its original form in 1996, but could not be commenced until a further amendment four years later. The reason was that the reality on the ground and the policies necessary to cope with this had changed and the Act as originally passed was unworkable. Postponing the commencement of that Act until it could be suitably amended did not prevent the implementation, in the meantime, of an administrative scheme to give effect to the Government's proactive policy in the area.
The Government believes that immigration and citizenship policy should be an expression of Ireland's national values both at home and throughout the world. Our policies in these areas are a significant part of the dynamic process of shaping Ireland's future. If managed properly inward migration can bring very considerable benefits to the State, as we have seen in recent years, including improvements in economic growth and productivity, as well as cultural enrichment and diversity. However, the proper management of these matters includes having an orderly, organised and enforceable system of entry. I do not accept the proposition that there is no immigration policy. In one sense, this is a charge that is easy to make and difficult to counter. The fact is, however, that people come to Ireland from a wide variety of social and economic backgrounds, for different purposes and various lengths of time. I do not accept that all such persons may be neatly pigeon-holed or that they can be treated as a separate generic group. In many instances their needs have more in common with Irish citizens of a similar socio-economic background than with other categories of non-national. It is not possible to have a definitive policy which is tailored precisely to each individual situation, but it is essential to have a coherent overview of the whole system. All too often, however, many people take the unique circumstances of an unusual individual case, and without knowing all the facts use it as evidence of the lack of coherence in the overall scheme.
Here is an example of the reality on the ground. In 2003 there were more than 127,000 non-European economic area nationals registered with the Garda Síochána as legally resident in the State. This figure covers those who were legally resident for more than three months at any time during that year. It excludes asylum applicants and children under 16, as well as the female spouses of Irish nationals, although that anachronism has since been amended. It also represents a fourfold increase over the corresponding period in 1999. Therefore, the number of people registered in this State from the non-EEA countries had grown by four times in the period 1999-2003.
This large increase posed significant challenges for the immigration administrative system and for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in particular. However, the sheer scale of the numbers is hardly evidence of the absence of a policy on immigration or of one that ignores the benefits that immigrants bring to a country such as ours, rather the contrary. For example, more than 34,000 of those were entitled by virtue of their immigration conditions to work without any employment permit. A further 28,000 were students who were entitled to work part-time without an employment permit. In fact 62,000 of those non-EEA nationals were entitled to work without any formal employment permit. Despite this, there is a mistaken perception that every non-EEA national working in the State is, in fact, subject to the employment permit scheme.
These exemptions are not accidental. They are there because it is part of Government's immigration policy that those categories should not have to have employment permits. In addition, the admission of ten new member states to the European Union removed the employment permit requirement for their nationals with effect from 1 May 2004. This approach, another aspect of this Government's immigration policy, is far more generous than in some of the other member states of the European Union. It was an example of policy being worked out in practice. We said, "No permits, on you go". It is liberal in absolute terms as well as in comparison to the approach of some of our European neighbours. As a result of the policy, over 15,000 people who were the subject of employment permits in 2003, or one third of the total, were exempt from the requirement from 1 May onwards.
I acknowledge the need for infrastructural development within our immigration service in terms of computerisation and the like. A great deal of rapid progress has been made in recent years. All major Garda registration offices have been computerised and the standard of service provision improved dramatically in the last two years. The long queues which were once a feature of the Garda registration office in Harcourt Street are now a thing of the past. Some 650 civil servants are employed by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to deal with immigration related matters. It must be borne in mind that 70% of these staff members are engaged in the processing of asylum claims or in the provision of accommodation for the small minority of non-nationals in the State who are asylum applicants.
The major reduction in the number of asylum applicants has provided me with some elbow room and the opportunity to refocus some of these significant public resources on areas of service provision for non-nationals which are under-resourced at this point in time. The freeing up of resources will benefit further the provision of services to the remainder of our immigrant community and, perhaps, help to alleviate the false perception that a policy lacuna exists. There can be no question of the Government doing other than honour its commitments to the 1951 convention as a fundamental expression of our humanitarian ideals notwithstanding the fact that to do so costs the taxpayer approximately €350 million per annum.
It is in the nature of our work as Deputies that people come to us whenever they have problems. There is, accordingly, a danger that our perception of immigration matters, to name but one aspect of the Government's many functions, may be coloured by the fact that these are all we see. While people come to us about visa matters only when there is a refusal, we should also be aware of the many thousands of visas issued every year in contrast to those which are refused. The House should bear in mind that in 2003, 122,000 visa applications were granted and 21,000 refused. This is a six to one ratio. Likewise, while public representatives know all about those cases which involve a proposal to deport, we must also be aware of the many thousands whose permissions to be in the State are granted or renewed as a matter of course. Each of these represents the implementation of a Government immigration policy.
It is easy to make the college debating society crack that the Immigration Act 1999 was a deportation rather than an immigration measure. While this cheap jibe may form the basis for a sound bite which receives media coverage, every instance of immigration policy is characterised by rules in accordance with which some people are permitted to remain in the State and others are not. This is true in every state in every part of the world. The absence of deportation divisions would mean there was no immigration policy at all. Deportation is therefore one of the core essentials of any immigration policy. If one does not have deportation at the heart of an immigration policy, one will have chaos.
Undoubtedly, there are inadequacies in current immigration law. It is because I accept this fact that I will issue the discussion document and bring forward the comprehensive immigration and residence Bill next year. I do not accept, however, that a consequence of this Bill's absence has been a failure to develop immigration policy. Among other things, Deputy Costello suggested in his contribution that there is no Government policy on asylum, which is a rather odd suggestion given the evidence at every hand's turn of a proactive one. The policy has been in place and evolving ever since my predecessor, Deputy O'Donoghue, was in office. Its first element is the overarching principle of firm commitment to protecting those who need the State's protection and to the 1951 convention on refugees. In keeping with that principle, we aim to ensure that every person who comes to Ireland in genuine need of the State's protection from state prosecution is recognised as a refugee at the earliest possible stage.
The practical out-working dictated by this commitment means a number of features are now in place. There is a workable statutory framework for dealing objectively and independently with claims for protection which was not provided for in the original incarnation of the Refugee Act 1996. In fact, the structures originally provided for in the Act could not have coped with the volume of asylum claims which were experienced within a few short months of its enactment. There has been significant investment in staff and other resources to ensure the Refugee Act works. Staff have been provided for the independent bodies themselves as have staff and funding for legal aid services to assist asylum seekers in making their claims. Staff have been provided in my Department to deal with the decisions of the independent bodies on asylum claims. There has been significant State investment in the provision of services to asylum seekers while their cases are being investigated and determined by the independent bodies. The Reception and Integration Agency of my Department has a network of facilities which provide a wide range of services for this cohort of persons throughout the country.
It would be a cause of considerable personal satisfaction if the results of the work of the independent bodies involved the processing of a high proportion of valid claims as this would indicate that most claims for protection were well founded. I do not worry about large numbers of genuine refugees as we have committed to protecting those who need protection and will deliver willingly on the commitment. However, the House must acknowledge that what is dismaying about asylum numbers is not the volume of well founded claims or even claims themselves but the high proportion which turn out not to be well founded. More than nine out of ten fall into this latter category after independent investigation and appeal. Among other things, this statistic means the resources the State invests in the asylum process turn out in large measure to be wasted when they could be used to improve access to more efficient and productive aspects of the immigration and citizenship processes.
This leads me to the next leg of asylum policy which is an equal commitment to remove from the State those who claim protection whose claims turn out to be groundless. Without this policy our commitment to protecting those in genuine need would be wide open to abuse and we might as well not bother with our asylum policy's other core elements. It must be acknowledged that false claims for asylum and those who make them have a number of adverse effects apart altogether from merely financial ones. Most seriously, a high incidence of false claims brings the precious institution of refugee status into disrepute particularly when coupled with sloppy journalistic or non-governmental organisation language which seeks to equate all asylum seekers with refugees. False claims diminish public awareness of the fact that most non-nationals in Ireland are people who have come here in compliance with normal immigration requirements, have nothing to do with the asylum process and ensure their stay is lawful.
I have noted a tendency to accept uncritically as true every charge against the decisions of the refugee process. The result is pickets outside my Department and the office of my party while people say I am engaged in racist deportations. While I do not want to get involved in discussions of individual examples, when one considers some of these cases, one finds there is no truth whatsoever in the underlying allegations made by those who say I acted appallingly in refusing their claims. It is not I who assess their claims. Claims are assessed in a two way process carried out by independent people. I ask the House to accept the proposition that those involved in the Refugee Applications Commissioner and Refugee Appeals Tribunal legs of the asylum process do their best to distinguish between true and untrue claims of persecution. While it may be that where an appeal is rejected two mistakes have been made, it is much more likely that both objective processes have reached the correct conclusion that the continued claim of persecution is unfounded. I have found it disturbing, to put it no stronger, that a number of public personages have sided with someone who has made wild and unfounded claims against the asylum process which have evaporated completely when tested in detail.
