Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Oct 1999

Vol. 160 No. 7

Treaty of Amsterdam: Motion.

Mr. Lanigan

I move:

That Seanad Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option provided by Article 3 of the fourth Protocol set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam to notify the President of the Council that it wishes to take part in the adoption and application of the following proposed measure:

a proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) concerning the establishment of ‘Eurodac' for the comparison of the fingerprints of applicants for asylum and certain other aliens (COM (1999) 260 final),

copies of which proposed measure were laid before Seanad Éireann on 6 October, 1999.

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

The purpose of the motion is to seek approval for Ireland to opt into the adoption and application of a proposal for a Council regulation concerning the establishment of Eurodac for the comparison of the fingerprints of applicants for asylum and certain other non-nationals. The Treaty of Amsterdam, which came into force on 1 May 1999, has added to the EC Treaty a new Title – Title IV – which comprises, inter alia, measures on asylum. This proposed regulation falls within Title IV and it does not, therefore, apply automatically to Ireland, or the United Kingdom, but is a measure into which Ireland, or the United Kingdom, may opt into under the Fourth Protocol of the Amsterdam Treaty.

There are two alternative forms of opting in, the State may either opt into taking part in the adoption and application of the measure from the outset under Article 3 of the Fourth Protocol or, alternatively, Ireland may opt into accepting the measure at any time after it has been adopted under article 3(2) of the Fourth Protocolumn. A time limit is given for the exercise of the first form of opt in; the State must give notice of the exercise of the option of taking part in the adoption and application of the measure in question within three months of the formal presentation of the proposal. In addition, under Article 29.4.6 of the Constitution, the prior approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas is required before the option can be exercised.

If Ireland does not opt in to the adoption and application of the measure from the outset, while we might participate in relevant meetings, we would not be able to opt in until such time as the negotiations have been concluded and the measures adopted, and our ability to influence the outcome of the discussions would be correspondingly limited. Essentially, this is why the Government, acting on legal advice, decided to exercise the option of opting in to the application of the measure at this time. Moreover, the United Kingdom has formally notified the President of the Council on 7 October that it intends to opt in to the adoption of the measure.

The background to the Eurodac draft regulation may be traced back to 1996 when proposals were made during the Italian Presidency to have an EU-wide mechanism for exchanging fingerprint data. The need for this measure arose from the fact that many applicants for asylum in the European Union were not properly documented and consequently there was a lack of evidence about their identity which made it difficult to establish whether they had previously lodged an application for asylum.

The objective was to establish and maintain a fingerprint system, known as Eurodac, the purpose of which is to assist in determining the member state which is responsible pursuant to the Dublin Convention for examining an application for asylum lodged in a member state and otherwise to facilitate the implementation of the Dublin Convention. The draft regulation replaces the draft Eurodac convention and protocol which were respectively "frozen" when agreed by the Justice and Home Affairs Council in December 1998 and March 1999 pending the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, when a different legal base would be appropriate.

The Dublin Convention which was signed in 1990 during the Irish Presidency and which came into effect in Ireland on 1 September 1997 gives effect, by the countries of the European Union, to the generally recognised international principle that persons seeking asylum should do so at the first opportunity available to them. The Dublin Convention guarantees asylum seekers who arrive in the territory or at the borders of the member states that their applications will be examined fully by one country in accordance with that country's determination procedures. Broadly speaking, the purpose of the Dublin Convention is to lay down criteria for determining which member state is responsible for examining an asylum application.

The effective operation of the Dublin Convention depends on the ability to identify asylum seekers and to establish their first point of entry into the European Union. Problems arise when asylum seekers arrive in a member state without documentation to show who they are or where they came from. As over 80 per cent of asylum seekers currently evade immigration controls and claim to be unaware of how they arrived in Ireland, identification of the appropriate EU country under the Dublin Convention is obviously very difficult at present.

Ireland fully supports Eurodac as an essential tool to assist in the implementation of the Dublin Convention and of discouraging abuse of asylum procedures. In practical terms, the Eurodac system will provide a facility to determine whether an asylum seeker or illegal immigrant has claimed asylum in another member state. Without tools such as this the whole asylum process can be brought into disrepute and persons who should receive protection may lose out.

I want to stress that genuine asylum seekers have nothing to fear from this measure and, in fact, it should ensure that their applications are processed speedily and that they will be accorded the necessary protection quickly.

I would also draw the attention of the House to Article 1(3) of the draft regulation which states: "Without prejudice to the use of data intended for Eurodac by the Member State of origin in databases set up under the latter's national law, fingerprints and other personal data may be processed in Eurodac only for the purposes set out in Article 15(1) of the Dublin Convention."

The following is a brief outline of what is contained in the draft regulation. It provides for the establishment of a central computerised unit within the Commission for comparing fingerprints of asylum applicants and certain other non-nationals. It further provides for the fingerprinting of three different groups of people to be transmitted to the Eurodac central unit and processed within the central database, yet to be established: (a) applicants for asylum – Articles 4-7 – the draft regulation creates an obligation on member states to take the fingerprints of applicants for asylum and to transmit them to the Eurodac central unit; (b) persons apprehended in connection with the irregular crossing of an external border – Articles 8-10 – the draft regulation creates an obligation on member states to take the fingerprints of persons apprehended in connection with the irregular crossing of an external border of the member state and to transmit them to the Eurodac central unit in order to facilitate the implementation of Article 6 of the Dublin Convention which provides that "when it can be proved that an applicant for asylum has irregularly crossed the border into a Member State by land, sea or air, having come from a non-Member State of the European Communities the Member State thus entered shall be responsible for examining the application for asylum"; (c) persons found illegally present within the territory of a member state – Article 11 – the draft regulation allows member states to use Eurodac if they wish to do so to check whether a person found illegally present in its territory has previously claimed asylum in another member state. This article does not create an obligation or a power in Community legislation for a member state to fingerprint persons found illegally present within its territory. A member state can only take the fingerprints of the persons in question if it is permitted to do so under its national law. No such provision exists in Irish law.

If the proposal from the Commission is ultimately adopted as a regulation, it will have direct application in member states. Under Article 11, however, the fingerprinting of persons found illegally present in a member state is an optional matter for each member state. Should it be decided to take the fingerprints of illegal immigrants in this situation then legislation will be required to give effect to this in Ireland. There are no plans at this stage to introduce such legislation here.

The exchange of fingerprints through a central database should considerably improve the effectiveness of the Dublin Convention. It is a straightforward and efficient way of establishing the identity of asylum seekers who often lack adequate identification. In addition to establishing whether an asylum applicant has also applied for asylum in another member state, Eurodac will establish whether he or she has made any previous applications for asylum under another name in Ireland. This regulation is necessary to allow Ireland, on the one hand, to retain its long and honourable tradition in the asylum area and, on the other, to deal effectively with abuses of the asylum determination process.

In 1998 under the Dublin Convention Ireland received 64 requests for transfer from other member states, of which 49 were accepted. In the same period, Ireland made 167 requests for transfer, of which 141 were accepted. Up to 30 September 1999 Ireland received 47 requests for transfer, of which 39 were accepted. In the same period Ireland made 165 requests for transfer, of which 128 were accepted. It is obviously difficult to establish the appropriate EU country when asylum applicants do not have the documents necessary to identify from where they have come.

The total number of asylum seekers transferred under the Dublin Convention since its ratification at the end of August 1997 is 27. No transfers have taken place under the Dublin Convention to date in 1999 as a result of a ruling by the High Court in respect of section 5(1)(e) of the Aliens Act, 1953. This power has now been restored by the Immigration Act, 1999, and the regulations necessary to allow deportations to resume in accordance with the procedures set out in the Immigration Act, 1999, will shortly be finalised.

The numbers seeking asylum here continue to rise. The total number of asylum applicants this year has already exceeded the total figure for 1998 with 4,636 applicants to 6 October. The numbers applying during 1999 increased from 234 in January to 453 in June but jumped dramatically to 571 in July, 963 in August, 938 in September and 259 last week alone.

The task force which I put in place to deal with this matter is dealing with new and old applications simultaneously. At the rate of progress in relation to processing cases at first instance, based on application figures up to July this year, it was intended that the task force would have dealt with the entire backlog of applications by July 2000 and from that date would be processing applications within weeks of arrival. However, in the light of the unexpected increase in the number of applicants, in August and September particularly, and if this level of intake is maintained, the resources available and nature of the operation involved, this timescale for processing applications cannot be achieved without a full review of the resources available for the task. I will keep this situation under review and, if necessary, I will seek additional resources to ensure the steady progress in eliminating the backlog, built up principally in the 1990s, is maintained.

I point out, however, that there have been a number of important achievements in the asylum area during the last year which emphasise Ireland's continuing commitment to a transparent and fair asylum procedure in accordance with our international obligations. In February last the Refugee Legal Service, an independent, comprehensive legal service to assist asylum seekers, was set up and operates from the Refugee Applications Centre in Lower Mount Street. A sum of £1 million has been provided in the Estimates for 1999 for the Refugee Legal Service. It is important to note that the Refugee Legal Service is ring-fenced in terms of funding and resources and will not interfere with the other commitments of the Legal Aid Board. In tandem with the opening of the Refugee Legal Service, I established an independent monitoring committee to ensure a quality refugee legal service is provided and to investigate complaints from customers of the service.

I also established an interdepartmental working group to review the arrangements for integrating persons granted refugee status or permission to remain in Ireland, including the appropriate institutional structures for the delivery of these important services, which is due to report in the near future.

Last February I obtained Government approval for the preparation of amendments to the Refugee Act, 1996, to make it workable. These amendments were brought forward as part of the Immigration Bill which was enacted on 27 July 1999. This clears the way for full implementation of the Refugee Act, 1996. It is hoped to have all sections commenced early in the new year. In this respect, the House will be aware that detailed regulations are required for many aspects and that the Refugee Applications Commissioner and Refugee Appeals Tribunal must be appointed.

One of these amendments as set out in section 9(a) of the Refugee Act, 1996, as amended, provides that fingerprints may be taken by an officer authorised for the purposes of the Act of asylum seekers over the age of 14 years. Dublin Convention countries are exchanging fingerprint data of individual asylum seekers on a bilateral basis in an effort to bring more certainty into the Dublin Convention process. Because of the unavailability of fingerprint data in the State, Ireland is unable to co-operate as fully with its Dublin Convention partners as those states do with each other in detecting duplicate applications EU-wide and ensuring applications are dealt with in whichever state is the proper one, which may be Ireland. My Department is working on the procedural measures necessary to implement this provision and, pending entry into force of Eurodac, it is intended to enter into bilateral agreements initially with some EU member states to exchange fingerprints of asylum applicants. It will also aid the detection of multiple fraudulent applications here. Clearly, this will also assist in identifying any abuses of our welfare payments system.

Last February I appointed two additional appeals authorities bringing the total number of appeals authorities to four. Although almost 1,000 appeals have been considered this year to date, over 1,500 appeals are waiting to be considered. In this regard, I am making arrangements to appoint further appeals authorities to create a wider panel to be available to address this demand. Accordingly, my aim continues to be to minimise the time taken from the date of application to completion of the procedure in a refugee determination process which meets the highest EU and international standards.

Regrettably, bogus or fraudulent claims are a feature of asylum processing systems throughout Europe. Any reasonable measures put in place by member states which have the effect of speeding up the determination process and thereby quickly identifying genuine applicants are to be welcomed. My information is that all other member states have procedures in place for fingerprinting asylum seekers and the Eurodac measure will take this step further by ensuring that the provisions of the Dublin Convention are operated fairly and effectively.

The detailed aspects of the regulation to give effect to Eurodac are still subject to negotiation by member states and the relevant institutions of the Union. It is my firm belief that it is best that Ireland is in a position to influence the final outcome of these negotiations. Acceptance of this motion in this House will ensure that we are well placed to do this, and I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Connor

While this side of the House will not oppose this measure introduced by the Minister, there is something objectionable about extending legislation on fingerprinting. Fingerprinting is always associated with criminal activity and it is always criminals who are fingerprinted. It is a pity that it has become necessary to introduce this measure to bring some order to the chaos that attends on the refugee and asylum situation in Europe and the 15 member states of the European Union, in particular. It proceeds from an agreement in a certain title of the Amsterdam Treaty which the people accepted. With that reservation, we will not oppose the measure, although we regret it is necessary. The Minister is to attend the European Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers in Tampere this week, though the Minister can confirm this. This meeting is to agree priority objectives in harmonising asylum and immigration matters throughout the EU, if that is possible. This offers Ireland an opportunity to assert itself in insisting that the highest standards and best practice are adopted and practised in any agreement that may arise out of this meeting. I hope the Minister will seek a clear distinction in any regulations that may be laid out between asylum refugees and immigration. Part of the difficulty that exists is the lack of clear distinction and the different interpretations taken by member states. Some are liberal while others, including Ireland, are not. This meeting offers us an opportunity to insist on a clear distinction.

In the development of the harmonisation of asylum issues, we must fight for the highest standards of protection and for an end to the minimum standards that exist at present. One will always have minimum standards when there are no real set standards which member states must adhere to. In relation to any decision on asylum or immigration matters one will have decisions to be taken by unanimous vote and there is a five year transitional period in which unanimous voting will determine the direction of decisions. This, by its very nature, leaves any determination very loose. Ireland should be operating in a situation where, having fought for the highest standards, we have a decision by majority voting. Only in that way will we be able to tighten up and have an even standard throughout the European Union.

If the Tampere meeting results in a loose arrangement that is open to a wide interpretation by member states, minimum standards for the protection of asylum seekers and refugees will be the norm, which is the present situation. The very cornerstone of any new arrangement should be the 195 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugee, an excellent document which has stood the test of time. It can be interpreted liberally or strictly, like all documents, but we should interpret it as it should be interpreted. We should take into account all developments since 1951 in international human rights law. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has issued a handbook on the interpretation on the UN convention on refugees and that should be the standard when it comes to interpretation. Ireland should insist that that is the standard.

If one reads the 1998 report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mrs. Ogata, the number of refugees and asylum seekers on the move in south-east Europe, for example, is quite extraordinary. Hundreds of thousands of people are on the move there, not for fun but because of dislocation in their way of life. People naturally go to where there is a better life and we should have an open door for these people in as far as we possibly can. We were great at talking about them as members of the European family when they were ruled by communist regimes until the start of this decade. According to our rhetoric, we would extend all kinds of support to them. I am old enough to remember the aftermath of the Hungarian revolution and uprisings in Warsaw. I remember what leaders in Ireland and elsewhere in the western world said about oppression. When the oppression was lifted, these unfortunate people no longer had livelihoods due to the economic dislocation that befell them. Command economies collapsed, there was no free market culture and attempts to put free markets in place have caused huge dislocation.

Leaving Europe aside, though it is hardly on the agenda in relation to this matter, the UNHCR report mentions a refugee problem in Africa which affects 12 countries. In 1998 the office of the UNHCR had contact with approximately 2.1 million people who were on the move; most of them were refugees and many were asylum seekers. There is hardly a change between the number for 1 January 1998 and that of 31 December 1998. The same is true of east Africa and the Horn of Africa, where there are over one million people affected in countries like Somalia. People from these areas come to our shores, a point I made on the Immigration Bill some months ago. The Minister and I crossed swords on that occasion but I raise these issues because they are very real and we have a real obligation to reach out to people. There is more and more globalisation, but for many people that has meant only dislocation and the robbery of their livelihood.

The European Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs are to meet at Tampere this week to discuss these issues and this country should lead the way in setting high standards of generosity and having as open a door as possible for refugees and asylum seekers. We would be mostly dealing in this context with people from what we like to call now and again the European family. I hope this is the stance he will take when negotiating on this matter with his colleagues. Although the Minister and I have had our differences, in most of these matters he has his heart in the right place.

Acting Chairman

I wish to mention a small misspelling in the Irish version on the Order Paper, where "Eurodac" is spelt "Eurocad". I wish to correct that in case anyone gets the wrong impression.

Mr. Lanigan

Although this is a small piece of legislation, it has broad implications for those dealing with immigration and asylum seekers. There has been a huge increase in the numbers of people coming to Ireland in recent years seeking asylum from corrupt regimes and police forces. In many cases people come here from states with whom we have connections but which are not democratic. The number of economic asylum seekers is growing at a ferocious rate, as can be seen on the streets of Dublin where large numbers of people play music, beg or sell The Big Issues. All of these people seem to be from the same part of the one country. I do not know whether this is the case but it seems that they are part of a club or Mafia as they are being run by a small group. The only parallel was when a group of deaf and dumb people would be dropped at the outskirts of Kilkenny or wherever in the morning to sell Sacred Heart cards and various other items. These items were sold in aid of the deaf and dumb but these people were collected by minders in the evening who took their commission. This was a con job which used deaf and dumb people. The same now applies to refugees, asylum seekers and those from Eastern Europe who are noticeable on our streets. I have often seen money being taken from these people by minders. Something must be done about this situation.

We should not offer an open door policy to asylum seekers, refugees or immigrants of any description. Such a policy would result in our being overwhelmed by the numbers who can enter Ireland because of the ease of transport from various European countries. Illegal immigrants are the problem. This can be seen in south Kilkenny where five, six, seven, eight or ten people jump from the backs of trucks which arrive from the Continent. These people disappear. However, if caught they have a certain amount of documentation which they bring to Dublin. This information tells them where to go for social welfare payments and so on. These people have paid someone to get them into this country. They are victims as much as anything else, as they must pay for the privilege of coming here from whatever social welfare payments or small jobs they acquire. These people are all over the place.

The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has been criticised for being tardy in devising a natural and humane way of dealing with people coming to this country. This process took a little longer than some would have expected but that is not surprising given that the number of asylum seekers and immigrants has increased at such a fantastic rate over the past few years.

The Minister stated that he appointed two additional appeal authorities to bring the total number of appeals authorities to four. He also said:

Although almost 1,000 appeals have been considered this year to date, over 1,500 appeals are waiting to be considered. In this regard, I am making arrangements to appoint further appeals authorities to create a wider panel to be available to address this demand.

This is a necessary step but three years ago who would have thought that we would have 1,000 people passing through the system in one year and 1,500 others still on the list? The unexpected increase in the number of refugees would not have occurred if the economy was not in such good condition. These people are coming to Ireland because they are targeting this as a priority country for illegal immigration owing to the healthy state of the economy.

There has been criticism of those who came here illegally and over-stayed their welcome, but these people were not allowed to work. The Minister introduced regulations which allow those who have been here for more than 12 months to obtain work permits. This will help the economy as there is a scarcity of labour in certain sectors. The Government is allowing people obtain work permits to bring in workers where scarcities exist. The reason for some of the scarcities is that people will no longer work for the going rate in certain industries. Some may say that the going rate is too low. That may be the case in terms of the average industrial wage, but many people will no longer do the work which the lower paid previously carried out. It will be very difficult to find people to do work, particularly in the services sector where large numbers of restaurants and bars continuously advertise for staff.

Eurodac is necessary as it will identify whether an individual applied for asylum in a different EU country. Fingerprints will go through a central computer which will allow people to be sent back to the country through which they entered the EU. This is a necessary part of the system as it was very difficult to know from where people had come when they did not have proper travel documentation. Unless one has a system like fingerprinting it is impossible to deal with situations in which people do not have proper documentation.

The Minister stated that illegal immigrants can be fingerprinted but those fingerprints cannot be sent into the Eurodac system under national law. I am not sure that this is a protection we want. This means that there is no point in fingerprinting illegal immigrants already here unless a new provision is introduced in our domestic law. Nevertheless, this will assist in trying to identify whether people have been here before or whether they entered the EU through a different country.

I agree that we have to be careful and humane in dealing with those who come from deprived backgrounds in countries where they are under threat of death or have been tortured. We must be careful to ensure that such people receive the most humane treatment and are granted asylum. Over the past few months people have suggested that, because of the concentration of immigrants in certain areas of Dublin, Irish people are becoming racist. Racism has been endemic in the Irish psyche for many years. The more people we see from non-western countries the more that Irish people will come to accept that these people are human beings with the same aspirations as ourselves who want to live in peace and harmony with their neighbours. The fact that there were so few people of different ethnic backgrounds in this country meant that they were looked upon as being apart and they did not receive due recognition. There used to be signs at English digs saying, "No Irish Need Apply". The same happened in Ireland where signs read, "No Blacks Need Apply". I hope this attitude is decreasing in the Irish psyche. It will take some time. We need to integrate people from abroad into the Irish population because that is the only way we will understand where they came from, what they went through and how best we can organise to help them in their home countries. Equally, if they come here seeking asylum they should receive proper treatment from the beginning so they can be assimilated into the Irish culture. This is another element in the puzzle of seeking to deal with the large number of legal and illegal immigrants. We welcome this legislation.

Mr. Ryan

Europe collectively needs to mind itself. Soft targets have been used to unleash forces, particularly recently in Austria, France, Belgium and, to a lesser degree, in the more civilised countries of north Europe, which we thought were gone forever in Europe. We thought Europe had learned the hard way.

Let us remember where Europe's immigrant issue began – it started from colonialism. It started with Britain, France, Belgium, Italy and, to a degree, Germany claiming the right to maraud wherever they wished around the world and do as they pleased with countries until half a century ago. They claimed the right to take resources from those countries as they wished and the right for a long time to enslave people and sell them. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that there is already a large immigrant population in countries such as the Netherlands, France and Britain. It is a consequence of the actions taken by those countries and they cannot draw a line and say that was a long time ago and it is no longer their problem. It is their problem, they created it and they must deal with it.

While appropriate noises are made concerning illegal immigration, the language and rhetoric used and the priority given to issues are understood by public opinion as being directed not only against people who are abusing trust but against everybody who looks different. This was the experience of someone I know well. My friend was returning from holidays accompanied by a teenage child and the child's 16 year old friend who holds an Irish passport and has a Zambian parent. A passport inspection officer asked ques tions as to whether the second teenager with the black skin was really with them.

Europe needs to deal with more than the symptoms of the problem of illegal immigration and asylum seekers. The people who land here are symptoms of the problem. They are not the problem. People did not leave this country in the 1980s because somebody showed them how to go to the United States illegally. They left because there was nothing to do here and because possibilities existed elsewhere. People do not leave their countries because a clever international criminal gang offers to bring them somewhere else. They go because desperation suggests to them that whatever is available at the other end of the long chain of illegal immigration is spectacularly better for them and their children than anything available to them at home.

I am aware, although one would not pick it up from the Government, that there is an EU programme to deal with some issues in the countries from which large numbers of illegal immigrants arrive. However, it is not mentioned much in speeches about immigration, and, sadly, that includes the Minister's speeches about the problems associated with asylum seekers and illegal immigration. It is the only long term solution.

If colonialism was the first cause of large-scale immigration to Europe, instability on Europe's eastern border is the second cause. Wishing instability away will not make it go away, nor will the idiotic policies of the International Monetary Fund which are increasingly subject to intelligent and challenging criticism from many development economists because of their extraordinary rigidity. In many cases they have made a bad situation worse. In some cases, such as that of Russia, large amounts of money were made available without any attempt to require political accountability to ensure the money was used properly. This will happen again in other countries in eastern Europe.

The third issue is hysteria about migrants from eastern Europe. Many of these countries, particularly Romania which now has a significant number of its citizens in Ireland, have aspirations to join the EU within the next ten years. At the weekend I attended a meeting of parliamentarians involved in European affairs and, already, many long-standing members of the EU are talking about long transition periods after joining for many of these countries because of the fear of immigration. One of the pillars of the values of the Single Market, the free movement of labour, is already being diluted because of concerns about illegal immigrants. For ten or more years after the applicant countries join the EU and make the huge sacrifices involved, there will be a period in which they will not be allowed to migrate because Europe has developed a xenophobic fear of immigration.

Immigration happens due to mismatches between labour supply and demand. The first chapter of a first year economics textbook will tell one that. Although everybody accepts people emigrate because they have nothing to do at home and that large numbers of jobs in Ireland are unfilled – 75,000 according to IBEC – no more than 50 asylum seekers are now working in spite of Government decisions. The Minister can give the precise figure because it probably changes daily. If I were the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and was concerned, as he appears to be, about the impact on the public of the alleged large numbers of asylum seekers living on social welfare and in subsidised housing, I would ensure as many as possible were working and supporting themselves.

I gather it is a Government priority to reduce the numbers of asylum seekers living in areas of Dublin. Availability of work around the country would be one way of gently encouraging some asylum seekers to move. Let us not forget who these people are. These are people who struggled extraordinarily to get here. I suspect when the left their home country many of them were not sure where they would end up, but they struggled to get here because they wanted to make a better life. It is extraordinarily wrong to brand them in the way they have been branded.

As regards the proposal before us, if it was part of a uniform Europe-wide package of reforms one could accept it, but we all know that the real problem is that some countries are using the Dublin Convention to avoid their responsibilities. We all know, and it is widely recognised in Europe, that some countries' judicial practices in respect of asylum seekers are quite different from others. We also all know, incidentally, that some of the countries from which illegal immigrants have arrived have taken the convenient route of refusing to accept any of them back and it is hard to deport people to a country which will not accept them.

We must face the fact that in this country and in other countries decisions are being taken about the meaning of the Geneva Conventions which in some cases can be peculiarly narrow. For instance, it seems to be difficult to get it accepted that the Romanies are persecuted in many of the Eastern European countries. It has been difficult in some cases to get acceptance that there can be any persecution within, say, Somalia which is covered by the Geneva Conventions because there is no state in Somalia anymore because of the chaos which exists there. If there is no state, people cannot be subject to state persecution and some have argued that therefore they would not be covered by the Geneva Conventions.

I and the Labour Party will not call a vote on this issue because there is an argument that, however unenlightened some of our Minister's utterances might be on the issue from time to time, we are better off to have an involvement in this than to be outside it, but if the Government and future Governments want to deal with the problem which is perceived by many as one of illegal immigration, which is more to do with concentrations of large numbers in a few small areas than it is to do with absolute figures, then the real fundamental issue is to deal with the instabilities, inequalities, poverty and persecution which is quite endemic, not in countries far away but in countries which are in many cases applicant countries for membership of the EU. If we deal with those and organise a system under which economic growth begins in those countries, the problem will evaporate. Of course when the problem evaporates we will probably have to invent new ways of enticing new immigrants to fill the jobs which will become vacant.

Dr. M. Hayes

I do not propose to oppose what I see as a fairly modest measure. It may allay public concern to some extent and allay the apparent phobia about immigration. I have severe reservations about the fairly widespread and indiscriminate use of the term political asylum, which should be used specifically for people who are being actively persecuted for their political views and not applied to people who are forced to move as a result of economic necessity.

Having said that, I have a great deal of sympathy for the points already made by Senator Ryan about the need for the Government to begin to educate people in this country to a new attitude to immigration and for us to accept that in a wider world our society too can be enriched by the gifts of the cultures of people coming here. I know that for some people that can be quite destabilising and difficult to accept and I think there is a deep strain of racism in this society. Sometimes coming through Connolly Station I find it disturbing to find that coloured people with strong Belfast accents are suddenly singled out for particular attention by people on duty there. I remember one particularly ironic case. I was coming down to the inauguration of the President at a time when the talk was of multi-culturalism, etc., but at the station that morning I saw two rather oriental-looking men simply being lifted and bundled away, and it did not seem to me to be a great advertisement for multi-culturalism.

It ill-behoves Ireland of all countries in the world to seek to restrict immigration. We, who have benefited particularly in the US but also in Australia, South Africa and around the world, have found that other people accepted that, as the tablet on the Statue of Liberty states, the poor, the wretched refuse of our teeming shores, should be given a home and enabled to build the Irish diaspora of which we are so proud today. We should be the last people on earth to erect barriers or to encourage the European Union to do so.

Last evening I was listening to Dr. Henry Kissinger and it might surprise Senator Ryan to hear that he was enunciating a very similar view to his on the activities of the International Monetary Fund.

Mr. Ryan

Now I am worried.

Dr. M. Hayes

Dr. Kissinger does not seem to me to be prima facie a candidate for membership of the Labour Party, but there it is.

Mr. Connor

Nixon is dead.

Mr. Ryan

We've heard another view on that too.

Dr. M. Hayes

We need to be careful that we are not simply looking at effects and symptoms without trying to understand the causes, which can often be global.

As well as the historic and emotional arguments, there is a strong economic argument for this country opening up its boundaries and accepting people in. Those countries which do well in the world are ones with open boundaries, countries which receive skills. We are nearly getting to the stage in this country of saturation of the labour market. There are industries which are finding it more and more difficult to get workers. If the present economic progress is to continue, it can only be fuelled by a constant supply of workers and to get that we should accept the need for, and not the possibility of, an open borders policy and the need to encourage immigration. It should not be indiscriminate and we should not avoid the need to either train, educate or help people to locate in the country. If we want to pull down the shutters on economic development, we will put up the shutters to people coming in.

I support this measure, with some reservations. It is a modest means of helping bring order into chaos, but I would appeal to the Minister to begin a debate on the wider issues. There is a danger that acts like this could be used to reassure the very people who should not be reassured in society, those who want to close things down and who are intolerant of others. We should think of our history and of the benefits which we have got from the generosity of other nations at other times. Let us too show the same sort of generosity to those who are in need across the world today. In doing so, we will be showing good economic sense also.

Mr. Costello

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senators Hayes, Ryan and Connor in their contributions. I want to look at the broader context of the discussion, in terms not just of asylum seekers but of what might be deemed to be economic refugees. In the context of our history and our growing economy, we need a national policy in this context. The Minister has stated that there are in the region of 5,000 asylum seekers entering this country on an annual basis.

With regard to the specific measure we are discussing, the question of fingerprinting in the context of the establishment of Eurodac or the comparison of fingerprints of asylum seekers, it goes against the grain for Irish people to accept the principle of compulsory identification of any sort. Ireland is one of the few countries in Europe and the world where one does not need to carry identification. We do not need to carry a photograph, licence or identification papers. As a society we regard it as a fundamental mark of our democracy and civil liberties. We resent being asked to produce identification, even to the extent of minors entering public houses. We have not gone in that direction although there has been lots of talk about it. It is something that goes against the grain.

I am concerned that this proposal extends to 14 year olds. Will the Minister give some clarification in his response as to why that is the chosen threshold? Why should it not be adults or 18 year olds rather than younger people? Minors and children should be exempt and adults should be considered. Why 14 year olds? Why somewhere in the teens? Why does it not start at 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 or 18 years of age? I would like to know why that cut-off point was chosen. It seems too young and unnecessary.

In theory there is little one can disagree with in the proposal. As Senator Maurice Hayes said, it is a relatively modest proposal in so far as and as long as there are adequate criteria in all the member states that we are talking about, in terms of a fair hearing, due process and a fair application and appeals mechanisms, so that if people are refused in one country, they are being refused on a fair basis similar to our own. It would be unsatisfactory and unacceptable if the Dublin Convention was operating with different criteria in countries.

I wish to refer to a more parochial point, my experience in my constituency with asylum seekers and the manner in which the system operates. It is natural to expect that there would be a greater distribution and concentration in areas that are adjacent to services supplied by the State. Therefore, central Dublin, as the Minister will know, has a greater proportion of asylum seekers than anywhere else in the State. This puts pressure on services and accommodation and often leads to a degree of intolerance being expressed because the perception may be that people are cadging, on the dole and out to get what they can from the system. Given the increasing number of asylum seekers, the issue of the inadequate or disproportionate distribution until their cases are heard must be examined.

It gives rise to a totally unacceptable position with regard to accommodation and breaches of the planning laws. The present practice seems to be upheld by both the local authority and by the health board or, at least, a blind eye is turned to it. For example, legislation was introduced a number of years ago to facilitate the establishment of bed and breakfasts, mainly in rural areas, without the need to apply for planning permission. Planning permission was not required for a residential home of up to four bedrooms. Up to 25 people are being crammed into four bedroom houses in parts of this city and the owners of these houses present them to the local authority and the health board as bed and breakfasts.

They also use another method of establishing a loophole. If an entire house is treated as one unit it does not need planning permission. This is a loophole. We are left with a hostel arrangement where a large number of people are placed in unsatisfactory, overcrowded accommodation. The health board has to pay large sums of money on a daily or nightly basis for that accommodation. These are serious matters that give rise to a great amount of debate in the local authority and health board at present. These are matters I would like the Minister to address.

With regard to the question of employment, one of the best ways to ensure that people integrate and disperse in the community is to ensure they have employment. Between 700 and 800 people benefit initially from being parents of children born in Ireland and subsequently the 12 month threshold was introduced. Nevertheless, the number of people that have been able to obtain employment is remarkably low. Perhaps it is because employers have to pay – there must be a work permit with a fee. I would like to know why there has not been a greater uptake. Anyone that I have met is very anxious to get employment but they feel it is difficult to get through the bureaucracy to obtain it or to find an employer who is willing to go through the bureaucracy to get it despite the great shortage of workers in the economy.

A Jamaican lady came to see me yesterday. She is a British citizen and arrived in Britain when she was a child. She has been here for over 17 years. She wanted to go home to Jamaica for Christmas and applied to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for a passport or an assurance that if she was to use her Jamaican passport to go home that she would be allowed to return here. She was treated as if she had arrived here the other day. She was told she would have to apply as an asylum seeker and would not be allowed to work and, therefore, have to get a permit, yet she has worked here for 17 years. If she was accepted she would only be allowed to work on a year-to-year basis. This insensitive approach was shown to someone who, as a British citizen, had crossed the Irish Sea and did not have a British passport. She does not want to apply for a British passport because of the historical hostility between many Jamaicans and the British empire. However, she would like to apply for an Irish passport. She has been treated in an insensitive manner and as though she were an alien. I can give the Minister all the details again but some distinction should be made in cases of this nature.

While we would prefer that measures such as this were unnecessary, it is not something we will put to a vote.

Dr. Henry

I regret the fact that we are bringing in this directive. I was fingerprinted once when I entered the United States of America. To get a work visa in those days one's fingerprints were taken. I was never quite sure what they thought I would do there. I had thought I was going to work as a doctor, not with some criminal intent. I am glad that does not happen now when Irish people enter the United States and I am sorry it will happen to people coming here. When Fr. Micheál MacGréil used to write years ago in his sociological reports that we had racist tendencies, we were all very enthusiastic about saying he must be wrong. The fact that very few people from other countries were coming here meant we could at least pretend we did not have what one could call a less than welcoming attitude. There is an unfortunate aspect to this in that this attitude will spread to Irish people who do not look like what we consider to be Irish and they will be asked to give more details than the rest of us when filling in forms or when giving fingerprints.

Recently, a young Irish woman took her young son to London to meet his father and she had considerable difficulty when returning here with the child – who was not fingerprinted as he is only about a year and a half – because he had a very dark face. There were suggestions that this child could not be hers and she was questioned as to who she was bringing in. Irish people who do not accommodate the looks of those from Cavan, Kerry, Cork and so on will be next in the line of fire and will end up facing such trouble. I regret this very much indeed.

As Senators Ryan and Maurice Hayes suggested, we would be far better off trying to do a little more in the way of educating people about the reasons people might be seeking asylum here. The Minister is right that objections are made by people, and Senator Costello is right when he talks about areas in the city in particular where objections are made but this type of action will not help us appreciate the fact that it is not by sending money to black babies in Africa that we can help. We must give support to certain people who want to bring democracy to their countries, for example, look how successful we were in helping the East Timor campaign. Successful campaigns can be waged from outside countries so that democracy – if it ever existed – in that country can be restored.

I do not think consideration has been given to educating people on this issue; I gather very little is taught about it in schools. In the health service we very often come into contact with people who are seeking political asylum or who are refugees here. But even the difficulties we experience, such as asking the Department for interpreters, have not been taken very seriously. I spent a long time recently trying to perfect my Chinese when dealing with someone who had left mainland China and who had come through Hong Kong to here. Fortunately, a large number of those who come here are very well educated. If one looks around a hospital out-patients department one will find people with a little French, German and so forth and we can manage but it is difficult when one's Serbo-Croat is not quite up to it.

The fact that we make so little effort explaining why some of these people are here and, indeed, trying to help those who are dealing with them to do so in the most compassionate way possible, shows we are at the end of the line when it comes to dealing with asylum seekers; it is difficult to get here and the happier we will be the fewer who get here.

I am very anxious about the policy of returning people to what are described as "third countries". I regret that the Dublin Convention is called the "Dublin Convention" because I hate all this being associated with Dublin. I know why some of the legislation was introduced. Being described as "very good hearted" in those days, we did not want refugees in orbit, people going from country to country, but we were one of the luckiest countries being at the end of the line and the aim was to try to ensure that as few people as possible could come here. When I look at the number of people who are in some areas of Europe, Germany in particular, I believe we have little room to complain. If the general public had any notion why people fled here – these details must be kept confidential – and the possibility of death, torture, imprisonment and so forth which face them if they are sent back, I do not think their views would be as unsympathetic.

It is a great pity we do not look more at the advantages of having people coming here. We have a very small genetic pool. Who were the last people to come here? Cromwell was probably the last to come here – we will forget him – and before there were the Normans. We have a lot of Norse blood and not much since, apart from Cromwell. I sometimes wonder if we ever thought of widening the genetic pool; perhaps it would not be useful here. We never look at what people coming here can do for us. It is constantly and repeatedly what we can do for them. The way the health service is going at the moment, we would be extraordinarily grateful if a few people coming into the country would staff our hospitals because at present, outside the pale and in a couple of large cities, our medical hospitals are staffed by non-EU nationals. The Minister is aware of this because of my complaints to his Department. These people are finding it very difficult to get into Ireland, the hospitals have difficulty getting staff and these people are trying to come here to help us. This is an area where the Irish people should be encouraged to look at the advantages of giving these people shelter. Several European countries apparently think it is all right to send people back to Iraq. I have been to Nigeria and that is considered a satisfactory place to send people back to. I do not think it is satisfactory. I regret that we are looking at the humanitarian side of this problem in such a self-centered and selfish manner.

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

I thank the Senators for their valuable and thought provoking contributions to this important debate.

The Treaty of Amsterdam requires the Council to adopt minimum standards in the field of asylum in relation to procedures, to reception conditions and to the refugee definition within five years. Ireland is in agreement, in principle, with the concept of a single European asylum system which should be used and based on the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam and its related protocols. While the Fourth Protocol provides that Ireland and the UK shall not take part in the adoption of measures pursuant to Title IV of the Treaty, Ireland is committed to effective co-operation in the justice and home affairs areas. While the various protocols attached to the Treaty will obviously influence our position, our approach would be a positive one within those confines. My priority is to ensure that persons genuinely in need of international protection will receive it. Any proposals from Europe towards a minimum standard in the field of asylum seekers will be a further step towards strengthening our asylum procedures here.

Before Ireland can exercise its opt-in right to any EU harmonised system of asylum pursuant to Title IV of the Treaty of Amsterdam, approval will have to be sought by way of a motion to be moved in both Houses of the Oireachtas in accordance with Article 29.4.6 of the Constitution. Eurodac is a further step towards strengthening the purposes of the Dublin Convention by providing an effective tool to determine the member state which is responsible pursuant to the Dublin Convention for examining an application for asylum lodged in a member state. We owe it to the genuine refugees who are entitled to and deserving of protection, to ensure their applications are dealt with quickly and fairly, that they are not identified simply as part of a large and well organised effort to evade immigration controls.

I have outlined already today some of the more recent important achievements in the asylum area over the last year. I have also, of course, put other measures in place since I came into office to ensure that our asylum procedures are fair, reasonable, transparent and in accordance with our international obligations and humanitarian traditions in this area. The one-stop-shop which has been set up in Mount Street houses at present officials processing asylum applications, the independent appeals authorities, the refugee legal service and the Eastern Health Board's refugee unit and medical screening and additional staffing which I am keeping under review.

A fundamental point which has to be made is in the Amsterdam Treaty Ireland opted out of measures such as this only because the United Kingdom did so. The people of Ireland who voted in the referendum to give effect to the Amsterdam Treaty clearly and unequivocally gave their consent to this approach. Moreover, the people also decided that the declaration attached to the Amsterdam Treaty is that Ireland will participate in these measures in this area to the maximum extent possible subject to the maintenance of the common travel area between Ireland and the United Kingdom. As I stated in my opening remarks, the United Kingdom has signalled its intention of adopting this measure and the motion before us today is in effect giving expression to the wishes of the Irish people as enunciated in the Amsterdam referendum.

Many Senators, as I said earlier, made very thought provoking, interesting and valuable contributions. Ireland is committed to the upholding of its international obligations and, indeed, its humanitarian obligations where refugees are concerned. As a signatory to the Geneva Convention, 1951, Ireland is internationally bound to ensure that any refugee coming into our jurisdiction is given asylum. As Senator Hayes pointed out there is a difference between an illegal immigrant and a refugee. It is true that both are asylum seekers but a refugee receives the protection of the State and an illegal immigrant does not.

In 1996 Ireland passed the Refugee Act which was implemented in part only. I have indicated on numerous occasions that it was my wish that we would implement the Refugee Act, 1996, but for pragmatic reasons it has not been possible to implement it. For example, it provided for one commission or one appeals authority. The legislation was framed and passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas on foot of, at most, a couple of hundred applications for asylum every year. It would appear that was what was envisaged. What has happened is quite different. The number of asylum applicants has risen rapidly in recent years. Nobody could have envisaged that in the first week of October alone there would be 259 applications. It was unusual in the early 1990s for there to be even 50 applicants. The position has changed radically. That is why I recently moved to amend the Refugee Act, 1996. It is my hope that the Act will be implemented in full in the not too distant future.

Some people believe that there should be an open border policy, that people coming to Ireland should be made welcome and should be awarded the facilities of the State and given the same rights as Irish citizens. I wonder if that argument stands up to any kind of detailed scrutiny. There is nothing in the history of mankind that has not happened before. Germany and France, when their economies were in very good shape, decided that there would be a right to work for immigrants. It worked fine for a time but when the economies dipped, what happened? Employment was no longer as available as before, especially in the lower skilled areas, and tensions, to say the least, became more evident. Unfortunately – and I say this sincerely – it gave rise to racist remarks and acts of racism and to the rise of far right parties. That is an undisputed fact.

It is significant in the context that when Ireland decided, in July, to give what was an extremely restricted right to work to asylum seekers the word seemed to spread that if one came to Ireland one would automatically have a right to work. I do not know to what extent that is related to the massive increase in asylum seekers coming into the State in August and September.

Mr. Ryan

The Minister should not say that. He has a great responsibility not to foment problems that do not exist. He is the one who sets the public's—

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator has had an opportunity to contribute. The Minister, please, without interruption. I would ask you to desist, Senator Ryan.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I do know that there was a significant increase in the number of asylum seekers. An individual seeking asylum here has his or her application considered in detail in the first instance. Such individual, if dissatisfied with the outcome of the application, is entitled to appeal that decision to the appeals authority who makes a decision on the claim. If the person is still dissatisfied, it is open to any applicant to seek a judicial review in the courts. Interpretive facilities, legal services, accommodation, supplementary welfare and health care are provided pending determination of the application.

Representatives of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, when they visited me late last year, were of the view that Ireland's mechanisms for dealing with asylum applications were potentially a model of good practice for the entire free world. There is no country that I am aware of – and I have studied this subject in some depth – which has an open border policy with regard to asylum seekers. It must obviously be the case that each country has immigration laws. It is not the easiest function for any politician in any country to enforce immigration law. It is true, and I accept this fully, that one is dealing with, for the most part, very unfortunate people. Indeed, very often one is dealing with people who are being victimised and used by others. That much is certainly true. Trafficking in human beings into the member states of the European Union and into Ireland is being carried out by criminal gangs. There is very little doubt about that. It is true that the position in regard to the right to work in this country is being misrepresented. The Government decided that people resident in the State on 26 July 1999 who had made an application for asylum and who had complied with the law in relation to asylum seekers could, if their applications were more than 12 months outstanding, be entitled to a work permit. Very few have taken up this option; the take-up is below 40. It is difficult to know why. I am not going to hazard a guess. Any individual from outside the European Union who wishes to work in this country is perfectly entitled to make an application to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Ninety per cent of such applications are approved by that Department and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Therefore, there is a mechanism in place for people to apply to work in the State.

Senator Ryan said that immigration began with colonisation. That much is true. Countries which did colonise were, for the most part, responsible for much of the subsequent migration. Ireland was never a colonial power but, as Senator Hayes stated, it certainly was a country of emigration. I wonder if this island nation on the periphery of Europe – a member of the EU albeit – subject to the vagaries of international events in terms of its open economy, could truly be compared with the United States of America which is, after all, the economic engine of the free world. I do not believe that the comparison stands up because there is a considerable difference.

Senator Henry seems to be of the view that it is unfortunate that we intend to fingerprint people entering the State and she recalls being fingerprinted in the United States. It is not my intention, nor is it that of the regulation or the Refugee Act, 1996, to fingerprint people entering the State; it is the intention to seek fingerprints from people who apply for asylum from the State. This is being done because to operate the Dublin Convention effectively and efficiently the states of the European Union have agreed that there should be a database for comparison purposes in order to ascertain which state should deal with an application. In other words, the provision is designed to ascertain the state of first entry of an applicant. The state of first entry is obliged to consider that application fairly and squarely, pursuant to the convention.

The return by this country of an individual to a state where he or she may suffer persecution or death is prohibited. This relates not only to asylum seekers but to all non-nationals arriving here. If, following determination by the appropriate authorities, it is ascertained that returning the individual to another state would lead to that individual being, in turn, returned to a state where he or she would be likely to suffer persecution or death, then the rule against refoulement or the rule of non-refoulement applies. Therefore, it cannot happen. That provision is contained in Irish law.

I strongly agree with the view enunciated by a number of Senators that there should be an enhanced effort to assist developing countries or Third World countries, from which many of the people emanate, in trying to prevent the flow of emigration, on one hand, while assisting them to build their economies on the other. That is a sensible approach.

It has been stated that it is difficult to enter this country. I suppose that was true once, but it is no longer true. There is an area of common travel between Great Britain and Ireland and it is important that this be preserved and maintained. However, any individual who arrives in Great Britain can obviously avail of the common travel area to enter this country. The vast majority of applicants for asylum in Ireland do not arrive at conventional ports and state that they do not have identification in their possession. To be straight with Senators, it can be very difficult for officials working in this sensitive area to ascertain where people originated. However, I stress again that if an individual is a refugee the process is fair, open, transparent and honest enough to discover that. The people working in this area are well trained, with the help of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, and they understand what they are doing. Both they and the appeals authorities are people of the highest calibre.

That brings me to the issue of immigration officers. That is a tough job, it is not easy. I fully accept that mistakes are made, but in general the people working in this area do their level best. They would be the first to admit that mistakes are made but I must, in fairness and deference to them, state that they do a difficult job extremely well.

Racism is something I abhor and condemn. It is true that there are parts of Ireland where it has raised its ugly head. Therefore, I continue the work of the committee on interculturalism and racism, which was first formulated in the European Year Against Racism, and I have allocated resources to it to enable it to continue its work. I believe it is doing a good job.

The argument has been made that it would make good economic sense to open our borders. It would not, in my view. I cannot accept that argument. I know of no other jurisdiction which has accepted that argument. In my opinion, the obligation of the State is clearly, in the first instance, to its citizens. Of course it has humanitarian obligations to which it must adhere and which it must enforce, but that does not mean that the State should open its borders to everyone. I do not believe it is xenophobic, narrow-minded or hardline to take that view. It is a view I hold because I do not believe that the alternative could operate with any degree of success.

Senator Costello wished to know why we decided that people over the age of 14 would be fingerprinted and why this should not apply to people over the age of 18. Our criminal age of responsibility is seven years of age. As Members are aware, I announced recently that this is to be increased to 12 so that below that age a person cannot be guilty of a criminal offence. At present there is rebuttable presumption between the ages of seven and 14 in relation to criminal responsibility, but that is not the only reason it was agreed at EU level that 14 would be the age at which fingerprinting will apply. It should be stated that this provision is already contained in the 1996 Act.

Senator Costello was of the view that there was a disproportionate distribution of asylum seekers. The Senator is correct. The problem is that accommodation is becoming increasingly scarce and there are practical problems in dealing with a huge glut of asylum seekers. There are problems—

Mr. Ryan

The Minister should choose his words carefully.

Mr. O'Donoghue

There are problems—

Mr. Ryan

They are not nice.

Mr. O'Donoghue

There are problems—

Mr. Ryan

The term "huge glut" is not nice.

Mr. O'Donoghue

There are problems—

Mr. Ryan

That is what causes the problems.

Mr. O'Donoghue

—in relation to accommodation and that is just one of the problems. Whatever about the niceties of language, the problems I have relate not only to accommodation. At present, bed and breakfast establishments and hotels are used to provide accommodation. In central Dublin there is a very serious accommodation problem. That is why an interdepartmental committee is looking at the matter to see how we should proceed. I anticipate that we will have a far greater degree of dispersal of applicants around the country in the coming months and years because this phenomenon will not disappear.

I have dealt with the general issue of refugees and I have stated the precise position fairly and clearly. When this measure has been passed and confirmed at EU level, asylum seekers coming into the country will be requested to provide fingerprints, those fingerprints can be compared with fingerprints in other EU states, a decision made as to where the person first entered and the claim will be dealt with in that state. The traffic will not all be one way. People will also come to this country who will subsequently be fingerprinted in other countries and will be discovered to have come to Ireland first. In such circumstances we will implement the provisions of the Dublin Convention, as is our duty.

The other provision in the Refugee Act, 1996, recently amended, refers to fingerprinting for internal purposes and relates to the problem of a minority making multiple claims. Obviously, the fingerprinting process will be of considerable assistance in ensuring that we will not have multiple claims in the future.

Every individual coming into this country is treated fairly. Any asylum seeker has his or her application heard and heard on appeal and the courts of the land are open after that. People who are found to be refugees are given the protection of the State in accordance with international law. People who are not are illegal immigrants. I do not deny that many of them are very unfortunate people and many of them are people who have been victimised – of that there is no doubt. It is of considerable importance, irrespective of whether the people concerned are illegal immigrants or refugees, that they are treated in a manner which befits their human dignity. That is done to the best of our ability. I am not in a position, for practical and pragmatic reasons which have been experienced in other states, to tear up Irish immigration law. I am not in a position to open the borders. I am not in a position to do what some very well-meaning people would wish me to do. I do not mean to be critical, but perhaps these people sometimes do not look at the full consequences of such an approach.

Mr. Connor

But we do.

Mr. O'Donoghue

There I must disagree with them and they must disagree with me.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 5.45 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.