Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality debate -
Wednesday, 1 Apr 2015

Undocumented Migrants: Immigration Control Platform

Chairman

As we have a quorum we shall begin the meeting. I ask everybody to turn off their mobile phones as they interfere with the sound system. The purpose of the meeting is to engage with the Immigration Control Platform.

May I remind members to ask questions, addressing them through the Chair, and save their speeches for the Dáil or the Seanad?

Briefing material has been circulated to members. I welcome Ms Áine Ní Chonaill, public relations officer and Mr. Ted Neville, member of the executive committee of Immigration Control Platform. I will invite the witnesses to make a brief opening statement of approximately five minutes which will be followed by a question and answer session with members.

Before beginning I draw the attention of the witnesses to the position in regard to privilege. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members should be aware that under the salient rulings of the Chair, they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Ms Ní Chonaill to make her opening statement.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

On behalf of the Immigration Control Platform, I thank the Chairman and members for the opportunity to make a presentation this afternoon. Let me introduce myself. I am Áine Ní Chonaill, PRO of Immigration Control Platform and I am accompanied by my colleague from the executive committee, Mr. Ted Neville.

Immigration Control Platform was founded in January 1998 as a non-governmental organisation seeking strict immigration control and not an excessive level of immigration.

Let me begin by reminding the committee that the two most fundamental duties of a state are the maintenance of law and order and the defence of the borders of the state. In today’s Europe, that defence of the borders of the state is no longer against military attack, but against illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration is the modern form of invasion. This is readily seen when one sees images of boats heading like an armada across the Mediterranean, but it is no less invasion when it is the more clandestine type of illegal immigration experienced in Ireland. There are many different types. It may be so-called "students" whose intention was to abuse the system to gain access to the labour market. It may be people issued with deportation orders who went on the run and many other categories. In all cases, these are people who are effectively giving two fingers to the State and its citizens, saying: "No, you won't decide who comes to live here and what limits there will be. We will decide, not you."

The State is not an abstraction; it is us collectively. The defiance of the State which is illegal immigration is an offence committed against the citizens of Ireland. To quote a former Secretary General of the Department of Justice: “It is the absolute right and bounden duty of every sovereign state to control its borders, in the interests of its citizens.” We would particularly emphasise the phrase "bounden duty". We hear of the right of states to control their borders but we never hear of the duty of the state to do so, and in the interests of its citizens. Dealing with illegal immigration is part of that defence of the borders and it is not done by saying: "It's ok. You can stay."

Ireland now has one of the higher levels of immigrants per head of population in the EU as shown by recent EUROSTAT figures, but the authorities, and particularly politicians, have not woken up to that fact. The level of deportations of illegal immigrants is risible - mere tokenism. In 2014, we deported 111, we do not have a breakdown of the figure into failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. There were 237 voluntary returns; making a grand total of 348.

In contrast, the following figures come from the Migration Observatory at Oxford:

In 2013, 50,741 people were removed from the UK or departed voluntarily after the initiation of removal. This figure excludes individuals refused entry at port and subsequently removed, in order to focus more clearly on what most people understand by deportation.

The UK's population is about 14 times that of Ireland. A proportionate level of deportation from Ireland would give a deportation figure of 3,624, more than ten times the actual figure.

With the permission of the Chairman, may I ask my colleague to deal with the fiscal elements?

Chairman

That is fine.

Mr. Ted Neville

In their presentation to the committee on 25 February the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, MRCI, claimed that their proposed scheme of regularisation would result in a fiscal gain to the State of €185 million during a five year period, or €37 million per annum.

They failed to take account however of the fact that each illegal immigrant in a job displaces an Irish citizen or a legal immigrant who should be in that job. If we take even the lowest estimate of the MRCI figure, that gives us a figure of 17,400 illegals in jobs which should be held by people who are instead on jobseeker's allowance. The costs to the State of jobseeker's allowance for that number of people is over €170 million per annum. For clarity the figures round to just under €10,000 per annum multiplied by 17,000 giving the figure of €170 million per annum. To put it another way, deporting an illegal immigrant, at the most recent figures we have, costs approximately €3,500. In light of the figures just mentioned, the €3,500 would be recouped from a mere four months of savings of jobseeker's allowance for persons who are consigned to that situation. In our view, these figures show the massive monetary harm done to Irish workers and to the State by illegal immigrants. The committee might be interested in the text of an e-mail received by the Immigration Control Platform on Friday, 31 October 2014.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Where is the best place to report illegal immigrants who work in Ireland? My wife is about to lose her job to an undocumented Chinese girl. I must stress that my wife is also Chinese but is married to myself, an Irish national, and she has worked here paying tax for the last ten years. She is being let go as she is here legally.

ICP has not even touched on the further harm which is caused by the downward pressure on wages occasioned by the employment of illegal immigrants. The Department of Justice and Equality has worked very reasonably with the Migrant Rights Council of Ireland, MRCI, in dealing with people who were no longer legally present through no fault of their own, when they had perhaps been assured by their employers that their work permit had been renewed and then found that it had not. The reactivation scheme was set up to help such people, administered by the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. We have no objection to such a scheme because there is no brazen defiance of the laws of the State involved. This reasonableness has been a hallmark of the authorities. When then justice Minister, Dermot Ahern introduced belated reforms to deal with student visa abuse, one of them was a seven-year maximum on the length of time one could be on a student visa. This was introduced with great consideration during the transitional period. For example, if someone was halfway through a course they were allowed to finish it. That consideration was acceptable. What was not acceptable was what former justice Minister, Deputy Shatter, did under the 2004 student probationary extension scheme, where he effectively gave an amnesty to 2,661 students who had exceeded the seven-year maximum, plus an unknown number of spouses and children. Those 2,661 were told "You may stay and work in Ireland for ever," thereby keeping 2,661 Irish or legal immigrants on jobseeker's allowance. We want to see no more of that injustice done to our citizens by an amnesty for illegals. No amount of dressing up a scheme with criteria will change it from being, effectively, an amnesty. Thank you Chairman.

Chairman

Deputy McGrath has indicated he has a question.

Deputy Finian McGrath

I welcome Áine and Ted to the Oireachtas committee on justice. My first question relates to the organisation, the national platform. It was set up in 1998, is that right?

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

Yes.

Deputy Finian McGrath

How many members has it got now?

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

If I might first say, the Deputy did not get the name of our organisation correct - it is the Immigration Control Platform. It has been our practice to treat the matter of numbers as an internal matter. We have never given an answer to journalists and we will not allow them now to get it indirectly. I make that point because it would be of some relevance if there were several NGOs like ourselves working on this side of the debate which is a very contested matter all over Europe. It appears to be the case in this country that there is no other organisation, except our own, working on this side of the debate. It has been said there are somewhere around 200 working on the other side of the debate. If there were other organisations besides us, it would indeed be a matter for the committee to know which of us was the biggest one. However, since we are the only one and since all surveys and polls in Ireland show that between 60% and 65% of the population says it does want controls and it does not want immigration to go too far, we consider we have a valid voice to represent that type of opinion without dealing with the internal affairs of our organisation.

Deputy Finian McGrath

The witness mentions the word "controls", and then in her order of submission uses emotive words and phrases like "armada", "abuse the system" and "two fingers to the system". Given that thousands of Irish people leave our shores every year emigrating to other countries, will the witness respond to the use of this kind of emotive language in relation to immigration and this country's history?

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

First, when one refers to emotive language it simply means one is of a different viewpoint and does not like it. On the business of us having a history of emigration, the answer is - so what? It is our business to run the country in the interest of our citizens. I was once on holiday in Norway, not that many years ago, and our guide was a well educated man - a third level lecturer. I raised this mantra with him, that which we hear in Ireland about our history of emigration. Norway would be the other country in Europe closest to ourselves in having a very strong history of emigration. I said to him we hear that "with our history of emigration now it is our turn to let people in". I asked him if this was said in Norway. He could not believe what I was saying. It is not something one hears in any other country. People in Ireland do not seem to know much about the fact that Germany, between 1850 and 1900, supplied never less than a quarter of all the migrants to the United States. It is a country that somehow people do not seem to associate with emigration. If one said to the Germans "you supplied a quarter of America's immigrants between 1850 and 1900, now it is your turn", they would laugh at you.

Deputy Finian McGrath

I do not know if they would laugh at it or not, but I find there is hypocrisy in the argument from the witnesses' point of view given we are a country with a history of emigration and with cross-party groups in this Dáil campaigning for the illegal Irish in America. That is why we challenge their view. The final thing I will say is very important. It is a fact of modern life that emigration is a reality, whether it is an economic issue or a social issue or a human rights issue. Should we not just get on with it?

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

May I allow my colleague to come in? I may add some comments when he has finished.

Mr. Ted Neville

I thank the Chairman and Deputy McGrath. I believe the hypocrisy, if there is hypocrisy, is wholly and solely on the part of legislators and the Government of this country for pleading in America for illegal Irish, and putting that position against our situation here in Ireland. Undoubtedly it is a failure of the State through many generations that it has not been able to productively employ its people in their own country, and that is a great shame. However, it is not a quid pro quo, that because we went abroad to America as a nation of emigrants, as people from many other countries did, we are then bound to accept limitless quantities of people from Africa or sub-Saharan Africa or Asia or wherever else. Jurisdiction for controlling immigration in the US is properly a matter for the United States Government. I do not see it as the Deputy is perhaps implying to some extent, as a population swap. It certainly has been a poor feature of the State since its foundation that it has not been able to find productive employment for its own citizens - it is a great failure. I lament that during the illusory boom we had at the turn of the century, at a time when there were many illegal Irish in the US, that we as a Government and as a State did not actively seek and publicise that we wished those people would return to this country where they could be legal. Instead employers, driven by all kinds of agendas, were much happier to bring in foreign people who could be employed very willingly at possibly lower rates of pay and so forth. Our duty in the boom, which has gone, was to bring our expatriated people home to work productively in their own country. We did not do that.

It is rather lamentable that we now have to go cap in hand with bowls of shamrock every St. Patrick's Day around the world asking will people take our Irish from us and keep them. We should want them here. That is what we should have done and we did not do it. I do not see a quid pro quo as a population swap between that situation and us taking peoples from all over the world without limit and without input.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

If I might come in, the Americans have absolutely no interest in whether we legalise Pakistanis, Nigerians or Chinese. Obviously, the reciprocity there would be that if they legalised our illegal immigrants we would have to legalise the small number of American illegal immigrants.

I would like to take up this idea one hears about the hypocrisy of the Government. Quite frankly, it is rather infantile to accuse the Government of hypocrisy in the sense that it is surely rather puerile and ridiculous to expect that a Government will----

Deputy Finian McGrath

Excuse me, I did not accuse the Government of hypocrisy, I accused the witnesses' group of hypocrisy. It is important to correct that.

Chairman

Deputy McGrath, you will get your chance, let the lady finish first.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

Since we have a single issue and do not get involved in immigration to America, legal or otherwise, as my colleague said, we cannot be accused of hypocrisy. I am just saying one frequently hears that the Government is accused of hypocrisy for seeking an amnesty for our illegals and not giving people amnesty here. What I was saying is that it is a very silly notion that any government would simply put its citizens only on the same basis as citizens from all over the world. If the Deputy stood for election and said, "I do not care any more for Irish citizens than I care for the citizens of China or Pakistan" he would not get elected. It is normal, natural and expected of governments that they will root for their own citizens and will have the brass neck to look for special concessions for them. Hypocritical it may be but it is what every government everywhere will do.

Chairman

Okay. Deputy McFadden.

Deputy Gabrielle McFadden

I am actually speechless. I do not have three questions, I have plenty of comments.

Chairman

Questions is what we need now, not comments.

Deputy Gabrielle McFadden

The witness spoke about the duty to bring home our Irish to work. My question to both witnesses is, has either of them ever had to emigrate during a recession for work, has anyone in their families ever had to or do they know people who have done so?

I must say I find the tone of the opening statement absolutely atrocious. Calling people illegals and using all of those terms just sounds terrible. These are human beings. I think the whole tone is obnoxious and I have no problem saying it through the Chair. I would love if the witnesses could answer my question.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

I have not the slightest intention of speaking about my personal or family relationships and should not be asked about them. I would like to take up the point that Deputy McFadden made about how terrible it is to call people illegals. We have the authority of the Irish Statute Book behind us in this. There is on our Statute Book a law which is the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act 2000. The Statute Book by the way does not recognise that the other terminology, illegal immigrants, is the proper terminology. I hope I have answered Deputy McFadden.

Deputy Gabrielle McFadden

I believe that they are human beings, not illegals.

Chairman

Okay.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

Do you really think----

Chairman

Through the Chair, everybody, please.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

I beg your pardon.

Chairman

All done, Deputy McFadden?

Deputy Gabrielle McFadden

I am all done. I have to be.

Chairman

Deputy Ferris is next to indicate.

Deputy Anne Ferris

I would like to ask Iníon Ní Chonaill and Mr. Neville through the Chair if they are Irish citizens.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

Yes, Deputy Ferris.

Mr. Ted Neville

Yes.

Deputy Anne Ferris

My second question is, do you consider yourselves Christians?

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

My answer to that is that my religious position is entirely private to me.

Deputy Anne Ferris

It is just something I want to say, Chairman. This day two weeks ago I was in Poland and visited Auschwitz. I certainly feel that there is a common thread between reading this statement and what I heard and learned in Auschwitz.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

Chairman, that is outrageous.

Chairman

Again I have to actually ask you to----

Deputy Anne Ferris

I find, and another member has said she finds, that your statement is - through the Chair - outrageous.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

Shameless.

Chairman

I think you have to withdraw that kind of a comment, Deputy Ferris.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

I insist on its withdrawal, Chairman.

Chairman

In all fairness, I think you really do, Deputy, you know.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

Has it been withdrawn, Chairman? Has it been withdrawn?

Chairman

I think you should really.

Deputy Anne Ferris

I will withdraw it, Chairman, but what I will say is that there are people in this country we have met, I have certainly met a lot of them here, that are called "illegals" by this organisation among other things, reading between the lines. I regretfully withdraw the statement because you asked me to do so but that is the way I feel.

Chairman

Statement withdrawn. I call Deputy Mac Lochlainn.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I think it is important to be honest. If one were to follow the report of this debate on thejournal.ie, the majority of the comments would be in support of the two speakers. If we talk about asylum seekers and the direct provision system, the majority of comments on thejournal.ie will be opposed to the asylum seekers and supportive of those who would ask they be deported. We have a major issue in Ireland that we need to be honest about. The truth of it is that the two contributors today actually speak for a view that is widely held, privately, in Ireland today.

Here is my point. Ireland is the only country in the world that today has a population lower than it did in the early 1800s. A book was written in 1986 by a man called Raymond Crotty called Ireland in Crisis: A Study in Capitalist Colonial Undevelopment. The author identified that of all the children who had survived childhood from the foundation of the State, half had emigrated. Of course, we had the 1980s and emigration - I am a Donegal man so I know all about emigration. My father, grandfather and I had to emigrate, not as asylum seekers but for economic reasons.

Having stated those things - through the Chair but obviously directed to the contributors - I ask how, with that knowledge of our history of economic migrants across the world, can we say we will not accept asylum seekers in Ireland? How can we not have a position that would regularise those who have been living here in Ireland for long periods?

What I understand right now of policy is not that Ireland would open its door for all to come as has been the case for the Irish people through the ages, but that we would regularise those who have lived here for three or four years or more and allow them to continue their lives here and return to their families. You may have seen the testimony to this committee of a man from the Philippines, which was deeply moving. Indeed we are deeply moved for our Irish citizens who give similar testimony over in the United States. Leaving aside ideological perspectives, we are all decent human beings here. How can we as an Irish people with that history allow a situation where we would not regularise that or allow genuine asylum seekers to stay in this State?

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

Could I first take up the point and from my experience the Deputy is correct when he says that probably this evening or today the comments on thejournal.ie will be contrary to our views. I will say to him that from my equal experience----

Chairman

No, no, no.

Senator Katherine Zappone

In agreement.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

I beg your pardon? Oh, did the Chairman mean that thejournal.ie will be in agreement with us?

Chairman

Can we have a bit of order here please? One voice, one meeting. If people want to have private conversations please have them outside the door.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I had better clarify this. When this debate is reported on thejournal.ie this evening, and in respect of previous debates on this subject matter, I am saying that the majority of the comments will be in support of Ms Ní Chonaill's view. We have to be honest that her view is not some view on the fringes in Irish society. Large numbers of Irish people share her perspective. That is the basis on which I put my questions to her.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

I am entirely puzzled by the Deputy's mention of asylum seekers. That is an entirely separate issue and not on the agenda of today's meeting. We would be delighted to be invited to speak to the committee about asylum seekers, but they are not at all the subject of our proceedings this afternoon.

With respect, we already answered the point about our history adequately. I am pleased but astonished to hear the Deputy say he does not want an open door for all to come here. I have in front of me the text of motions passed at the Sinn Féin Ard-Fheis in April 1998. Motion No. 26, which was passed unanimously, states: "Sinn Féin will work for the achievement of the optimum position of no restriction on immigration into Ireland." Motion No. 27 states: "Sinn Féin deplores all attempts to limit the numbers of political and economic refugees into the country." Perhaps the Deputy's party has changed its policy on the optimum position being no restriction on immigration, but I was not aware it had done so.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I will put the question again, because Ms Ní Chonaill obviously did not listen to it. My first point related to sentiment expressed on thejournal.ie, which I clarified for the witness. On my second point, I said that the suggestions I have heard in respect of possible Government policy do not include a proposal for an open-door approach. What is being proposed is the regularisation of economic migrants who have been in this country longer than three years. My question is not about Sinn Féin's policy but about what is being proposed, as I understand it, in terms of changes to legislation, as suggested by groups working in the sector.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

We have made it very clear both from the point of view of first principles and also for fiscal reasons, which nobody has mentioned, that we absolutely oppose regularisation. The committee has before it a supplementary sheet which highlights the Government response every time regularisation is mentioned, namely, that member states agreed the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum at the European Council in October 2008, which made specific commitments to use only case-by-case regularisation rather than generalised regularisation under national law. It is considered problematic to do otherwise. One of the ways of dealing with illegal immigration, particularly in ensuring it does not go further, is to make it very clear that a particular jurisdiction will not be granting amnesties. The problem is not that granting regularisation tomorrow would lead to people in Africa or Asia saying, "Oh, the Irish have granted regularisation, let us head over there." Rather, it is that in the medium to long term, the message goes out from European countries - and we do not want to be among the number sending that message - that people who become illegal immigrants, stick around for long enough and manage to stay under the radar will wear the authorities down because it is the latter who will blink first. That is what this is about; these people know the authorities will turn around in this sort of situation and say, "Oh, look, we really must let them stay." They know they will wear the authorities down and it is they who will blink first.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

When representatives of Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, MRCI, appeared before the committee, they produced evidence that if we were to regularise the position of the 20,000 or so migrants who have lived here for more than three years, there would be a net economic benefit for the State. Internationally, likewise, there is a range of empirical evidence to show that regularising the status of migrants who are contributing to a country's economy for a significant period provides a net economic benefit for that state. Does Ms Ní Chonaill have any evidence to the contrary?

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

We gave clear evidence in this regard in our submission and opening statement. I understand where Migrant Rights Centre Ireland is coming from in one sense, but its comments regarding tax seem to me to be a red herring. By its own admission, almost all of these people - 87% - are working here and half already pay tax. I assume many of them, as the MRCI witnesses admitted, are in minimum wage jobs. I am not too sure whether such workers are even in the tax net. Indeed, I understand some 30% of workers in this country do not pay any tax at all. Many of these migrants, as admitted by MRCI, have PPS numbers. Unfortunately, there is no difficulty, as there certainly should be, for an illegal in Ireland in obtaining a PPS number. I checked how one goes about getting a PPS number and it turns out one needs nothing but a valid passport and a utility bill. One does not have to prove legal residency. MRCI's point about an increased tax take is very strange because, by its own admission, many illegal migrants are already paying tax.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I asked for empirical evidence which was backed up by research, preferably from a university, to support Ms Ní Chonaill's proposition that the State would lose out economically by regularising the position of immigrants. However, I will move on and put my final question. In Ms Ní Chonaill's view, should all of the hundreds of thousands of Irish emigrants working illegally in the United States and other countries be deported back to Ireland?

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

As a single-issue organisation, our position is that immigration, legal or illegal, to any jurisdiction other than ours is simply not our business.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I am asking Ms Ní Chonaill for reasons of consistency. If she is using international examples to back up her argument for asking migrants who have come to this country to leave, would it not be consistent for her to call for Irish migrants throughout the world who have gone to other countries illegally to work to be deported back to Ireland?

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

We might be inconsistent if we were a multi-issue organisation, but we are a single-issue organisation. Immigration to this jurisdiction is our only concern. The Americans, in their millions, may concern themselves with the other question and, believe me, millions of them are so concerned.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn

I apologise, Chairman, but I must leave to attend another meeting.

Deputy Seán Kenny

Most of the questions I intended to ask have already been raised, but I do have one remaining. It is a fact that people who are perceived as being illegal immigrants in this country are frequently subjected to abuse and sometimes to physical attacks. What is the witnesses' view on whether using language such as "armadas of immigrants," talking about people coming here and "giving two fingers" to the State, and referring to people from sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, could lead to situations in which people are either verbally abused or physically attacked?

Mr. Ted Neville

I do not see how the Deputy could possibly object to the words "Asia" or "sub-Saharan Africa"; they are geographical, descriptive terms. We would have no geography taught in our schools if those terms were banned or deemed to be abusive or likely to lead to abuse. That is not a terribly logical point. A situation may arise in any jurisdiction where there is not a contrarian opinion expressed in parliament through elected representatives which seeks to give some representation to the concerns of populations within that country as to what is happening all around them. The single greatest change that has happened in Ireland since I was born in 1957 is that 20% of people now living in the South were not born here. That is the real figure to consider and it is quite astounding. It was never the policy or platform at any party's Ard-Fheis or annual conference, or whatever they are called, to announce, "Hey, great idea - we are going to change the demographic of Ireland. We are going to, by one means or another, allow a 20% foreign population to live here."

Meanwhile, 50,000 young Irish people will leave annually simply to acquire a job, which is what is happening. In a short period, Ireland will have a population not entirely dissimilar to that of Russia post the Second World War, with a whole generation of football players and soccer players, young apprentices and skilled people who are not here but in Australia, America and Canada. I do not think it is a particularly mature situation for a country to turn a blind eye to that once those people have gone on the plane and forget about them. One has to place hard facts. This country has 350,000 unemployed people, yet it continues to import a workforce from other countries, while our own people are emigrating and while our own people are unemployed and unable to find gainful employment or, perhaps, are being forced to work at rates which have been artificially driven down by the influx of people who are quite happy to work for very much less in pay. That is the situation that has not been represented in our parliament. It then falls to a few people like us who are of a contrarian opinion to point this out, and some people may not like the contrarian opinion.

May I draw one analogy very briefly? Great plaudits are being given to and interest expressed in the banking inquiry about people who did offer a contrarian opinion. I am just making a point of principle, not an exact comparison. It is now thought that it would have been a good idea, perhaps, if we had listened to those contrarian opinions, whether they were liked or not at the time. All I can say to the Deputy and the committee is that it would not, perhaps, be an undue indulgence for it to consider our contrarian opinion. It has a basis, and as the Deputy who has left has kindly remarked, it is the position held by the majority of Irish people as expressed in various opinion polls.

Deputy Finian McGrath

Stand for election.

Mr. Ted Neville

We have stood for election. Unfortunately, Deputy McGrath-----

Chairman

One at a time, please, and through the Chair. I will allow Deputy McGrath in again with a question but, please, no heckling.

Mr. Ted Neville

I can tell Deputy McGrath the exact position.

Deputy Finian McGrath

He is getting a long run. We had three questions each.

Chairman

The Deputy can reply in a minute if he wishes.

Deputy Niall Collins

I am next, Chairman.

Chairman

Yes, when Deputy Collins has finished. The Deputy knows that. A little bit of order, please.

Mr. Ted Neville

I can finish briefly. Deputy McGrath knows I was not elected. I stood for election and everybody who seeks election puts their platform before the people. I will say this: Irish elections are held in one particular context. They are held in the context that immigration is not discussed. At the risk of upsetting anybody, a vow of silence is taken by every Deputy here before every election not to discuss immigration. It is painted to us as not discussing racism.

Deputy Anne Ferris

That is rubbish.

Deputy Finian McGrath

One does not do set pieces on racism. We do not do those things.

Chairman

One voice, please. Can we have order, please?

Deputy Finian McGrath

We do not do those things.

Chairman

One voice.

Deputy Anne Ferris

That is an allegation I would like Mr. Neville to withdraw.

Chairman

One voice.

Deputy Anne Ferris

Where is the proof of that?

Chairman

I will have to suspend the meeting.

Deputy Anne Ferris

Where is the proof that I or any member here has signed the pledge?

Deputy Alan Farrell

I am-----

Deputy Anne Ferris

That is absolutely ridiculous.

Chairman

The Deputy can ask a question in a moment if she wishes, but first I would like order, please. I invite Mr. Neville to continue.

Mr. Ted Neville

To finish Deputy McGrath's legitimate question, I was making the point-----

Deputy Seán Kenny

It was my question which has not been answered at all.

Chairman

Deputy Kenny asked a question.

Mr. Ted Neville

I did answer the interruption, if that is what it was.

Chairman

No. That would only encourage more interruptions. Deputy Kenny asked a question and he has the floor.

Deputy Seán Kenny

I got no answer. The witness did not answer the question I asked about the fact that people are being physically attacked and racially abused-----

Mr. Ted Neville

I did.

Deputy Seán Kenny

-----because of the language used by organisations such as the Immigration Control Platform. He has not addressed that in his answer whatsoever.

Mr. Ted Neville

I did address it but, perhaps, not to the Deputy's entire satisfaction.

Deputy Seán Kenny

The witness did not address it at all.

Chairman

That is the response the Deputy is going to get. I call Deputy Niall Collins. I will take three questions.

Deputy Niall Collins

I do not have any questions, but wish to make my own brief input. I declare an interest at the outset. The last time I met Ms Ní Chonaill she was wearing a sandwich board outside the gates of Dáil Éireann and holding a placard about something I had allegedly said or done. I cannot recall what it was about.

I do not agree with anything our two guests have said. That they are so much out of touch with Irish society and Irish thinking is beyond me. I cannot put into words how far removed they are from any normal thinking in society. Following on from discussions I had with the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland and its presentation here today, I launched a Bill which is in the lottery for a Friday sitting. It is an earned regularisation Bill for undocumented people in Ireland, for which I think there is broad agreement across all the parties in respect of its principles, although there may be differences in regard to the minutiae of how it would be rolled out. If we were to regularise undocumented people in Ireland, that would be hugely beneficial. Many of them have put down roots here. The vast majority, up to 90%, contribute positively to society. It is a fact that two-thirds of them are working in the shadow economy. Regularising their position would prevent some employers from preying on them as vulnerable people and using them to suppress official wages. For all the reasons stated by the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, it all points to a positive. An alternative is to engage in mass deportations - that is not an option. The other alternative is to do nothing, but that is not an option either. It is an issue we should face up to. It is not fair to say it is an amnesty. It is not credible for people to come in here and make a presentation saying they do not have a view on the parallel situation that exists with the undocumented Irish in the US while saying they can present with credibility about the undocumented here.

Chairman

I invite Ms Ní Chonaill to respond.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

The Deputy has mentioned his Bill. I am glad he did because I consider it extraordinary that the MRCI, which is the advocate par excellence for regularisation, did not consider that it should go further - in reasonableness, apparently - than asking for people to be regularised who had been here four years. The Deputy, in his excess of zeal to rebrand his party, has decided to bring forward a Bill which provides that if they are here for a mere two years they are to be regularised. May it bring the Deputy joy.

On the second matter of deportations, the Deputy said one cannot do nothing, and asked what does one do. We have already said that a level of deportation proportionate to that in the UK would have us deporting 3,500 people per year. If one deported 3,000 or 4,000 for the next few years, one would soon arrive at 20,000. One will never deport all illegals. One deports as many illegals as one can detect. There is not a Government in the world that would be able to hold its head up and say there is not an illegal in its territory. On the issue of what we can do about illegal immigration, an illegal immigrant cannot live on fresh air. As we all agree, they are mostly in jobs. That means somebody is employing an illegal. That is an offence according to our work permit law, but one never hears of anybody being charged with hiring an illegal, as far as I am aware. We made a suggestion to the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, which has not been taken up, that it mirror an action taken by the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, which apparently has been successful. On the Department of Social Protection website there is a facility to report people whom one suspects of being engaged in social welfare fraud. It can be done anonymously, and I understand it has been a successful operation. We suggested to the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation that it put on its site a similar facility to report people suspected of working illegally. That would be an enormous help, because detection takes time, resources and manpower. I should mention also, if I may, that there is a problem with the National Employment Rights Authority. When I say that, I mean-----

Chairman

With regret, I have to intervene. We deal with justice issues, not employment issues. That is for a separate committee.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

Okay.

Chairman

I have to be careful not to move to that area, because this is the justice side of it.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

That is as much as I have to say to Deputy Collins.

Chairman

Senator Zappone has three questions.

Senator Katherine Zappone

I really only have one. Does either of the witnesses believe there could be any reason, be it humanitarian, ethical or other, for the Irish State to regularise even one undocumented migrant? Many migrants have come to Ireland as a result of human trafficking or have become involved in prostitution and sexual violence, and we have had a lot of discussion on that. Are the witnesses saying that in all cases of undocumented migrants the State, provided it can detect them, should deport them?

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

We indicated in our opening statement that some people who are technically illegal immigrants have fallen out of the system through no fault of their own. Perhaps their employers had assured them they had obtained or renewed a work permit but had not done so. We do not object to the scheme mentioned in paragraph 8 of the statement in regard to these people.

Ministers replying in the Dáil to calls for regularisation have said that any illegal immigrant may approach the authorities and ask for their case to be considered if they feel they have special circumstances. They may then be treated as special cases or they may be deported.

I am very interested in the Senator's reference to trafficking. I heard an expert speaking on "Six One News" after a conference on the subject, who said there was great confusion about trafficking. Almost everybody who is eventually considered as trafficked began as somebody who had themselves knowingly smuggled. They did not know the terrible things that were to ensue. Trafficking is enslavement. If people are trafficked onto our territory it is our duty to remove them from that state of enslavement. Once they are removed from their enslaver, who would hopefully then be severely punished, they revert to being no longer a victim but a perpetrator. We rescue them from their enslaver but then they are back to where they were, namely, an illegal immigrant. The answer to the question is "Yes, it is proper to deport them."

Senator Katherine Zappone

I disagree with Ms Ní Chonaill's opinion. I am greatly disturbed by what she had to say in response to my idea on human trafficking. It seems Ms Ní Chonaill objects above all to the numbers of people who might possibly move through a regularisation process rather than the idea that some undocumented migrants, in some circumstances, would be allowed to remain.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

No, that is not the case. Illegal immigration is an abuse of Irish citizens and it is offensive to think that we would allow an illegal immigrant to stay except under the very special circumstances about which I have spoken - namely, those who fell into illegality through no fault of their own. I have also said that there could be very special circumstances and, as I said earlier, Ministers replying in the Dáil to calls for regularisation have said that any illegal immigrant may approach the authorities and ask for their case to be considered if they feel they have special, compelling circumstances. If there is no special case, they should be removed.

Chairman

Deputy O'Dowd has three questions.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd

Members of my family went to America as immigrants and have fought for people who are there illegally. I stress that I support the principle that the arguments made by the Irish Government in Washington should be the same as those we articulate here about our illegal immigrants. There should be an equality of our ideas in this context, but what is missing from the presentation today is a humanitarian consideration of people who are driven by economic reasons to cross borders all over the world to look for work. Part of the process in Ireland is very slow, especially the part relating to people's rights to challenge a deportation order. I am faced on a weekly basis with people who are challenging such orders in the courts and the problem is that many cases have been in process for five, six, seven, eight, nine and even ten years. Due to our legal system the decision is delayed for a significant number of years and in many cases these people's children have gone through primary school and are valued and important members of the community in the local national school. They are wanted on the local football team, the local soccer team or the local volleyball team. Do the witnesses see that there is a humanitarian issue arising from the delay in the processing of their applications and that this gives them a valid case to be allowed to stay? Would the fact that the community in which they live wants them to be part of that community be a factor in considering an amnesty for these people?

Mr. Ted Neville

The Deputy raises an interesting situation. There is undoubtedly huge inefficiency, leading to a protracted process, and we hear regularly from asylum seekers who have been in the system for many years. The facts are not regularly stated but I will try to do so. The first stage in the process whereby an asylum seeker tries to remain in the country is to make an application for asylum and, on foot of the result of the application, he or she may appeal. It should be better known that the average time for processing the initial application is approximately 18 or 19 weeks, and the average time for the processing of the second stage - the appeal - is approximately 13 to 16 weeks. Cumulatively, this comes to no more than six months, by which stage every asylum seeker has received an answer from the State as to the legitimacy of their asylum application. It is often claimed that people are languishing in Mosney or Hatch Hall for 11 years without an answer, but they have their answer. They just did not like the answer, but so be it. It is the State's duty to provide those answers.

Having got their answer, asylum seekers do not lack clarification as to their position, but the remainder of the process, the finalisation of the case, is incredibly inefficient, and in this period these people have children and become part of the community, and local people feel they should stay. The State should be far more efficient in processing the stages subsequent to the first two. It is now doing this quite efficiently by managing it within six months. We have to give these people an answer more quickly. If the answer is "Yes," they stay; if it is "No," they go. At the moment it is a system which is easy to play out. Seán Aylward, the former Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality, has said that asylum seekers will fight up to the steps of the aeroplane.

Why would they not do so if they want to stay here? Anyway, they do that and they have succeeded in doing that for prolonged periods at great cost to the State. It is rarely mentioned how great the cost to the State is. In any Dáil term, €1.5 billion supports the entire asylum operation. It is extremely expensive. It should be far more efficient and streamlined. If people get their answer, they should take their answer. Then the country should, in conscience, enforce the answer; it has a duty to its citizens.

Deputy Fergus O'Dowd

Notwithstanding whatever criticism the Immigration Control Platform makes of the argument, is Mr. Neville arguing that these people ought be deported at the end of that process? Does he not see that if we regularise the position of all of those people then at least we would recognise the humanity of the families concerned, their commitment to their communities and their children?

This is an issue comes to my door. If and when it arises, those children cannot go to third level. They cannot pay the significant fees because they are not deemed to be citizens of the State or the European Union. Are we going to cast those families into perdition? The Immigration Control Platform would drive them from the State, but I strongly argue that we should regularise their position. Whatever adjustments need to be made legally for new people coming in future, we must make the case that those people are entitled to stay. They have done their time and they have made and continue to make valuable commitments and contributions to Irish society. People want them here. That is very important too.

Chairman

Who wants to take that question? Ms Ní Chonaill, you have your hand up.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

Children have been mentioned. They are used like battering rams in this process. When these families are deported, as they should be, I suggest that the children in question should wave good-bye to Ireland with great gratitude and say that they have received X years of free education in this country despite having no right to be here. Moreover, although they had no right to be in the country, they have gained a high level of English, which gives them an advantage in the globalised jobs market. Ireland, at the expense of the taxpayers and in spite of their illegality, has been very good to them and they should thank the country as they leave. That is my answer to the Deputy.

Chairman

Deputy McGrath, you wanted to come in with a question.

Deputy Finian McGrath

Some of my colleagues did not get in. I will wait until the end.

Chairman

Deputy Farrell wants to come in a second time.

Deputy Alan Farrell

Deputy McGrath does not want to hear what I have to say.

Deputy Finian McGrath

I have no wish to exclude anyone.

Chairman

No, you are not excluding anyone, and I will not exclude anyone. Do not worry.

Deputy Finian McGrath

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn referred earlier to thejournal.ie. He took the view that in response to today's debate most people would support the Immigration Control Platform position. I do not agree with that assessment. I believe approximately 15% of the Irish population would support that position. What is the view of the deputation on the amount of public support they have for their anti-immigration views?

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

I am unsure whether I referred to this earlier, but it arises in every survey and poll that comes up. Obviously, it depends on the question put, but let us suppose it is a general question, such as "Do you think we need strict immigration controls?" or "Do you think we might be going too far with immigration?". That type of generalised question seems to bring up a "Yes" answer for between 60% and 65% of people. I have many examples of it.

Chairman

Could you forward some of that information to the clerk for the information of members, please?

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

I would be happy to do so.

Mr. Ted Neville

We were having this interchange earlier when other Deputies were seeking to speak. The level of support among the general population for a greater degree of control on mass immigration is quite significant. The Deputy is right: we did not get elected when we went before the public on the issue. Irish general elections tend to veer off on many other things and certain issues get left behind. I was making the point, to the ire of several Deputies, that at election times they do not discuss immigration. In the context where something is not discussed and a void is left, it is difficult for people who wish to debate the issue to have an airing and a forum. The media rather compliantly and generously follow the politicians' lead and will not bring up immigration as a big issue. Therefore, it does not get discussed.

One particular poll gives some indication of the level of support for the general position we hold. The source may be surprising. In October 2009 The Irish Times conducted a poll. It asked people for their views on immigration. Fully 72% of people said there was either too much or far too much immigration into Ireland. This was a poll by The Irish Times in October 2009. It did not get a long ongoing discussion in the columns of The Irish Times, but that was the result and the newspaper was fair enough to publish it. Why does that not get translated into an election result? That is a question. I have it to say to Deputies that there is legitimately a pact put before all Deputies - it will be done again next year - to the effect that they are anti-racism. They are and we are too. That is quite fine and we have no problem with that; there are no racists here. The problem is that this is used, unfortunately, to encompass valid discussion of immigration. Since no one wants to get anywhere near the issue of racism, we also park immigration and a discussion of same. Therefore, there is no discussion in our general elections on the subject of immigration.

An election is due to happen in another country, our nearest neighbour, within the next month. They are in a similar situation to us. In fact, they have probably had a smaller percentage of mass immigration into their country in the past ten years. Immigration is straight up as one of the issues to be discussed and properly so because their public representatives are giving voice to what their constituents are telling them. The Deputies may say they never hear from their constituents about this matter and that they do not bring it to their clinics.

Deputy Finian McGrath

I did not say that.

Mr. Ted Neville

Okay.

Deputy Finian McGrath

I said that approximately 15% did.

Mr. Ted Neville

If Deputies find that people are not hammering down the door at their clinics talking about this issue as a major issue, then I will genuinely put it to them. I could walk down the road to my nearest Deputy and put it to him as well, but I know he will not stand up on his hind feet in Dáil Éireann, face the camera and start talking about my concerns about immigration. It is not mentioned in either of the two Houses of the Oireachtas. It simply is not discussed. Deputies have a duty, and I envy them. I would love to have been in the House, but I am not, and with 2% of the vote I will not be. The Deputies who are there are disenfranchising even 15% of the population by not maturely discussing immigration and by using the terms and opinions that we heard earlier from certain members. I do not think that really adds to the situation. That is my challenge.

Deputy Finian McGrath

I do not agree that we never discuss immigration. We regularly do so. Also, there are a number of politicians - I disagree with them - who have raised the issue during elections to try to get votes. Anyway, I will not go back over the history lesson.

My final question relates to the Immigration Control Platform organisation or group. It is interesting that Mr. Neville has referred to politics. Does the group target constituencies on the issue of immigration by sending out thousands of leaflets into certain areas, particularly poorer and disadvantaged areas? Is that part of the group's work? Has the group done that in the past two years?

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

When we put out leaflets we would not be thinking in particular about areas in the way the Deputy has talked about. The last time we put out leaflets we put them out in four specific constituencies, one being the constituency of the Deputy.

Deputy Finian McGrath

Is that the answer to the question? Were there thousands of them?

Chairman

Through the Chair, please.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

As matter of fact, through the Chair-----

Deputy Finian McGrath

It happened to be in a poorer area.

Chairman

Deputy McGrath, please.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

It happened to be in a poorer area. We chose the four constituencies in question because on 17 December 2013 a parliamentary question was answered by the then Minister, Deputy Alan Shatter. The reply was to four Deputies, of whom Deputy McGrath was one. It was implicit that they were looking for the regularisation of illegals. We were outraged at this and said that their constituents should be made aware of what they were trying to do. In those constituencies, including Deputy McGrath's constituency, we slogged around from door to door and outside various places and put out the leaflets.

Deputy Finian McGrath

How did you get on?

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

We were happy.

Deputy Finian McGrath

A number of my constituents rang me and they were not happy.

Chairman

Sorry; that is enough.

Deputy Anne Ferris

Those are only the people who ring Deputy McGrath.

Chairman

We will have two more supplementary questions from Deputy Ferris.

Deputy Anne Ferris

The opening statement refers to the obligation of the State to defend its borders.

Ms Ní Chonaill said in her opening statement that dealing with illegal immigration was part of the defence of borders. I would like to ask the witnesses what sort of defences they would like the State to put in place.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

The deportation of illegals when detected and an effort to increase that detection by a stratagem which I mentioned but which the Chair said belongs to another committee and was not happy for me to pursue. Also generally, as far as is possible, not tolerating the presence of illegals. That is what we meant by the defence of the borders.

Deputy Anne Ferris

Sorry, it was not quite clear because from my reading, I did not know whether Ms Ní Chonaill wanted the Army patrolling the borders or stopping illegals from coming in. In other words, Ms Ní Chonaill is just talking about putting stuff up on a website, as was said earlier, and perhaps asking neighbours to complain about their next door neighbours if they know they are not here legally. She said that should be up on the website of the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation and perhaps on other websites. Perhaps Ms Ní Chonaill just wants people to report on their neighbours and is not talking about the Army or the police patrolling the borders.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

The Deputy talks about the website, but that was not the only strategy. We talked about the importance of charging employers who hire illegals. The fear of God or the frighteners should be put on employers of illegals. It is not happening and it is absolutely central to the defence of borders when dealing with illegal immigrants, as well as, of course, deportation when they are detected. When we talk about defending borders, we mean not letting in people one does not want to allow in, and we also mean-----

Deputy Anne Ferris

How does one stop them?

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

I will just finish that sentence first. I am talking about not allowing in those whom one does not want to come in, and if illegals are detected, deporting them. How does one stop them? They are stopped by immigration officials every day. I do not have the figures here, but a much larger number of people are denied the right to land, higher than the number of deportations we mentioned. That is done at borders all the time.

Deputy Anne Ferris

The thing is that the witness says the immigration officers at the airports and ports are stopping people from coming in every day. Clearly, they are not stopping everybody, because we have a lot of illegals. I am glad to hear the witness does not want the Army or some kind of a national police force out there patrolling the borders. Reading from her opening statement, it is not quite clear exactly what she would be happy with.

Deputy Gabrielle McFadden

I just want to clarify, for the record, that in Fine Gael there is no pact not to discuss this situation at an election time, as has been said. I want that on record. I would never sign up to anything like that, because that is an outrageous thing for anyone to say. There is no pact within Fine Gael, and I speak for Fine Gael. Not to let my manners go astray, I want to thank the witnesses for coming before the committee, as I did not thank them initially. I want to thank them for making my mind up for me completely - not that I needed them to do it. After what I have heard today, I completely support the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland. After hearing the tone of the witnesses' opening statement, I completely support MRCI. The Immigration Control Platform has just made it more firm for me, and I thank them for that.

Chairman

Could I just ask a couple of questions myself? In the first paragraph of her opening statement, Ms Ní Chonaill mentioned the image of boats heading like an armada across the Mediterranean, which is a reality that we know. Why does the witness think the armada of boats is coming across the Mediterranean at the moment?

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

It is nice to hear the Chairman acknowledge that it is a reality. It has been said that some of the increase in this is due to the appalling situation in Syria. However, when I see what we are talking about on the television, it is frequently not Syrians but obviously people from Africa. There is a constant migratory pressure on Europe, but the utter chaos in Libya since the fall of Gaddafi is apparently among the reasons. Actually, the Libyans had been co-operating with Europe, apparently, in preventing boats from leaving for Europe, and that has completely collapsed now. People come from much further south to Libya to cross. They were previously prevented from doing so, but they no longer are. The phenomenon has become massively greater.

Chairman

I may have my figures incorrect here, but I understand tens of thousands of people have drowned in the Mediterranean in the last year and the year before in attempting to get across to Europe. Could I put it to the witness that the desperation of these people must be absolutely enormous to face such terrible hazards to try and get to Europe? They must be leaving something absolutely dreadful at the other side.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

The Chairman has put his finger on the nub of the problem. The nub of the problem with illegal immigration is that the determination of people to get to Europe is boundless, while the determination of European governments to prevent them from doing so is terribly weak.

Chairman

I do not want to be emotive on this, but people are so desperate that they leave in coffin ships which may have little chance of surviving the Mediterranean, and while many have perished, many thousands have been saved from death by the Italian Navy and others. Is the witness suggesting that maybe these rescue attempts should not happen, as some others have said?

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

My colleague wishes to come in, but may I say one thing? I can only speak for Immigration Control Platform. I am not here as an individual. The issue of rescue attempts not being made, as the Chairman puts it, has never been discussed, so I can only say the following and let it sit there: when these rescue attempts are made, what is happening is that someone is invading Europe and for the first time in history Europeans are aiding that invasion. The whole understanding of these matters has been turned on its head. That is all I can say. One is looking at people who are invading Europe and one is looking at people assisting the invasion.

Chairman

So is the witness suggesting that the assistance by European navies given to these particular people in boats should not happen and they should be allowed to die?

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

I have answered that in the sense that I have no permission to speak here other than on ICP policy. The Immigration Control Platform has never sat down and discussed the matter the Chairman has just suggested.

Chairman

I suggest that it do that because Ms Ní Chonaill started off talking about an armada of boats. This armada of boats, if I can put it to the witness, with respect, is because of the horrific situation in Syria and across north Africa and further south. People are driven because of race, religion or otherwise to try and survive with their lives in many instances. Their choice would probably be not to leave their homelands but if they do not they may be massacred and slaughtered. They come to the Mediterranean and many have died. More have been rescued. I put it to the witness that she herself mentioned an armada across the Mediterranean, so I suggest that she probably did discuss it. She uses those terms and likens it to a military attack. I wonder whether putting the two together - military attack and illegal immigration - is a little bit strong. I would suggest to the witness that when people are coming across on boats that may sink at any time, leading to the deaths of many hundreds of men, women and children, I do not believe it is fair to liken it to a military attack, which is a different type of armada, something like the Spanish Armada, which failed, or the Second World War armada which crossed the English Channel.

Some of the language Ms Ní Chonaill is using might not help the cause she is presenting.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

We have said the opposite to what the Chairman has suggested. I am looking at the third line of our opening statement, which reads: "In today's Europe, that defence of the borders of the State is no longer against military attack, but against illegal immigration." We specifically state that they are not the same. I mean no disrespect when I say that it is for our organisation to set our agenda. We will not take direction from the committee as to what we will discuss. These are difficult things to have to say.

Chairman

It was not that.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

The Chairman referred to people coming across the Mediterranean, their desperation and what they were fleeing. I am not sure whether I am allowed to ask him a question, but is he saying that there are circumstances that justify invasion? There is not a country in the world that would agree.

Chairman

I do not agree with the word "invasion". It is not an invasion as such.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

I have to put it so.

Mr. Ted Neville

Reverting to the Chairman's question, which was well put and recognised the reality of the situation - that there is and will continue to be a relentless and inexorable migration of populations from continents that are no longer economically sustainable, such as Africa, and where there is large population growth - that is the reason. Africa cannot sustain its population properly. Europe is seen as Valhalla, a place of refuge, but there is a limit on the number of people it can hold and on what valuable and productive inputs people can make in a European industrialised situation.

As to people drowning at sea, the Chairman described a human tragedy. It is compounded by the fact that European governments have sent out a signal that people should keep coming and that they will be placed on Lampedusa and brought to Italy and Germany. The European Parliament suggested that camps should be set up on the north African coast, with the agreement of the Governments of Libya, Tunisia and so on, that would receive people on the African continent and try to support and relocate them within Africa. By not doing so, governments have made the Mediterranean a fortress to cross. It is dangerous. The humanitarian tragedy is inexorable and will increase as long as Europe continues to receive people. We have to rescue them from the sea; no one is suggesting that we let them drown. Boats, ships and drowned people will be the reality unless Europe states that it can only hold so many people and would prefer to support them on their own continent of Africa.

Chairman

That is that. On behalf of the committee, I thank the witnesses for their attendance and their engagement with us on this subject.

Ms Áine Ní Chonaill

I thank the committee.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.53 p.m. and adjourned at 4.50 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 15 April 2015.