I apologise for my late arrival. I understood the debate was to commence at 3 p.m. I am glad to have an opportunity to speak in the House on this important and complex issue. I look forward to hearing the contributions of Members to the debate and I sincerely hope it can be conducted in a calm, rational and reasonable fashion. I intend to contribute in such a fashion at any rate. It is important that I state that the Government is committed to providing and administering an immigration and asylum system which assures protection for refugees, respects and upholds the rights of all immigrants and provides open, fair and effective procedures minimising the recognised risk of abuse. There is no equivocation about this and anyone who suggests otherwise is wrong.
It is important that I place on record the general guiding considerations which underpin the Government's policies and strategies on asylum and general immigration related matters. I wish to underline specifically the following elements of policy. Asylum and immigration law generally must be brought up to date with contemporary values and realities and must be applied fairly, justly and humanely in the same way as all other laws are applied. We must have systems in place to ensure that all applications for asylum are dealt with in an efficient and effective manner, that the necessary resources are made available for this and that those who work within the immigration and asylum service are also treated fairly and justly.
We must not allow legal distinctions between the various categories of immigrants to be blurred and, more specifically, we must not allow the definition of "refugee", which is defined and enshrined in the 1951 Geneva Convention, to be devalued. Those who are found to be genuine refugees must be fully integrated and enjoy all the rights which go with that status and immigrants generally, irrespective of their status or whether they happen to be here illegally, must also have their human rights fully respected, particularly in order to ensure they are not allowed to become the subject of criminal or racist attack. We must not allow internationally organised criminal groups to perpetrate large-scale fraud by means of illegal traffic and exploitation of human beings and we must deal firmly but fairly with those who are found to have entered the jurisdiction illegally.
Before I outline details in regard to the current situation, there are two fundamental points that need to be made. The first of these is that there is what can only be described as a fog of confusion surrounding the various terms which are used in any discussions about immigration, asylum and related issues. At the heart of this confusion is the failure to distinguish between a refugee, an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant. They are not interchangeable terms.
The second matter which gives rise to confused debate is the idea that immigration laws should be such that economic disadvantage, of itself, would provide an automatic and unfettered right of passage across national boundaries. If it were thus, not only would our immigration code be something of a worldwide exception and absurd in its features, but if implemented would mean that, within a short time, we would experience a level of uncontrolled inflow with which we simply could not cope. That would most certainly neither serve the interests of economically disadvantaged immigrants nor the people of the State – it would amount to a form of irresponsibility which could not be justified on moral or indeed any other ground.
In other words, it is essential that there should be sensible, balanced and defensible laws to control immigration and it is equally essential, if the law is not to be a nonsense, that the arrangements in place should be such that those who bypass the controls and enter illegally can, following the application of fair procedures, be obliged to leave. There is absolutely no point having formal and lawful immigration laws and channels in place, which are broadly in line with those in other jurisdictions, if those who bypass the lawful channels are rewarded for doing so.
The position of asylum seekers in Ireland has acquired an increased significance with the increase in the number of asylum applications being made. That increase presented us with a challenge as it focused attention on the procedures and resources in place to process asylum applications. The numbers applying for asylum during 1999 increased from 234 in January to 453 in June but jumped dramatically from 571 in July to 962 in August, 938 in September and more than 1,000 in October. The weekly average from July to November was 215. Nobody could have possibly predicted, and it is unrealistic to think that any Department or, indeed, Government could have foreseen, such unprecedented numbers.
Any person who claims that the current rate of increase in applications was entirely predictable and that we should have planned for it displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the issues involved. The reality is that my Department has no way of knowing whether ten, 100 or 500 applicants will show up on any given day. That is completely outside our control but, irrespective of the numbers involved, all have to be dealt with.
As I stated on a number of occasions recently, in so far as my Department is concerned, a full service has been provided to all applicants at all times.