Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 Nov 1999

Vol. 161 No. 8

Immigration Policy: Statements.

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

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.

Mr. Norris

The Minister cannot be serious.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister must be allowed to make his contribution without interruption.

Mr. O'Donoghue

The measures introduced in early 1998 had begun to produce results with the task force 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 of 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. The target was to reach a stage where an applicant would be interviewed within weeks of arrival and notified of the decision as soon as possible thereafter, so that an applicant would complete the entire application process in six to seven months. Because of the dramatic increase in new applications in recent months, additional resources will be needed to achieve this target. These resources will be made available at the earliest opportunity. My Department's officials are committed to processing applications for refugee status in accordance with our international obligations and domestic rules and procedures with a view to providing the best possible service to all applicants. Applicants for asylum are treated with courtesy and professionalism by all members of staff from reception to the final stage of the process.

All staff working in the asylum division, including the reception and interviewing personnel, have completed appropriate training courses and have received on the job experience of interviews and assessments. The training programmes were agreed with UNHCR and delivered by a combination of this Department's own experienced personnel, UNHCR training specialists and the UNHCR's full-time official here and include the necessary training for dealing with sensitive matters such as gender issues and victims of trauma and violence.

The significant increase in the number of persons applying for refugee status has given rise to an acute shortage of accommodation. The Eastern Health Board refugee unit has put a number of measures in place to address this problem and the Government has accordingly decided that asylum seekers should be dispersed to locations around the country. At its meeting on 9 November the Government again considered the situation which has arisen as a result of the unprecedented increase in asylum applications. The Government decided that a central directorate should be established immediately to deal with matters relating to the dispersal of asylum seekers throughout the country and preparation of plans for a system of direct provision of housing and welfare needs of applicants. My Department is now faced with new challenges and I am confident that the Government will yet again make available the resources required to meet these challenges.

I turn now to the legislation in place in relation to asylum issues. There have already been significant and worthwhile amendments to the law, the leading example being the Refugee Act of 1996. While the latter legislation has its flaws – mainly because the structures created were not adequate to deal with the substantial increase in asylum applications which subsequently emerged – I think it is a fair and reasonable measure and that is why current practice in the area of asylum applications is substantially guided by it. As Deputies will recall, the House also amended this legislation last summer to further strengthen its provisions and to make it operable in the radically changed circumstances which have evolved since it was enacted in 1996. I expect to be able to bring the amended Act into force early in the new year.

An example of current practice which owes its origin to the Act is the system of appeals which exists in the case of refugee applicants who wish to challenge the decisions made on their applications. I mention this particular matter because I want to address matters which are the subject of ongoing confusion and misrepresentation, and this is one of them.

All applications for refugee status are decided strictly in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the UNHCR. UNHCR personnel have access to all papers. There is, therefore, no question of arbitrary decision making and anyone who suggests otherwise is wrong. The important point which I want to stress is that appeals are decided on independently of my Department by people who have been appointed specifically for that purpose. My reason for stressing this is that I have heard it repeated over and over again that there is no independent appeals mechanism. That suggestion is quite simply without foundation.

In so far as migration for the purposes of employment is concerned, with the exception of a number of clearly defined categories, non-European Economic Area nationals require a work permit prior to taking up employment in Ireland. The EEA consists of the EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The work permit scheme is administered by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and decisions in respect of applications are taken by that Department having regard, inter alia, to the skills or qualifications of the person or persons concerned. This Government is committed to examining this.

I do not propose simply to sit around bemoaning the fact that the inflow of asylum seekers continues and pointing to the fact that, in terms of staff and resources, the problem has been totally transformed. I acknowledge that we need to do much more and that we need more staff and more resources. Not only do I acknowledge this, I am doing something about it with the support of ministerial colleagues and the leadership of the Taoiseach. I also emphasise – because this is a subject on which there is confusion – that this issue is being dealt with on a cross-departmental basis. The other Departments and agencies involved are and have been examining the adequacy of their existing resource commitments and will be putting in place the necessary measures to meet any shortfalls in areas for which they have prime responsibility. In particular, additional staff, accommodation and extended outreach clinics are being put in place by the Eastern Health Board to address the difficulties experienced by that agency.

I am determined, as is the Government from which I have full support in this regard, to provide the necessary resources, because none of us, as responsible Ministers and parliamentarians, takes any satisfaction or pride in the fact that people have had to queue for long hours for services. The resources already allocated to this task should not be forgotten. We provided the staffing – over 120 people, so that to date, nearly 6,500 interviews could be scheduled. We established the one-stop-shop concept in Mount Street with all the facilities and services required by asylum seekers located at one centrally located premises. We put in place independent appeals mechanisms, legal aid, health care facilities and a documentation centre. In short, we provided a system of processing asylum applications with adequate resources, which had at least a realistic prospect of meeting the demands we faced.

The recent influx demands greater resources and we are committed to providing the necessary means of delivering an effective service. To give an indication of the volume of throughput in the Mount Street centre, the total number of persons dealt with in my Department's reception area in the Refugee Applications Centre during the seven week period from the week ending 1 October 1999 to 12 November 1999 was 4,579, which includes 1,676 new applicants and the balance, 2,903, being general queries. In addition, over 426 persons attended the centre for appeal hearings and interviews.

It is and must be a basic concern of any Minister whose job it is to deal with the problem of public order to ensure that the evils of racism and the violence which has been associated with racism throughout the world are not allowed to take root. The fact that there have been racist attacks here already is something which everybody must condemn without equivocation. We do not assist the process of integration or help to avoid the evils of racism by blurring the legal distinctions to which I have already referred. The general public are not impressed and many are angered when they hear comments the general import of which is that a blurred application of the law is to be supported or at least tolerated when one is dealing with the problem of illegal immigration, but not when one is dealing with the breaches of other laws.

Suggestions to the effect that immigrants deserve preferential treatment when it comes to enforcement of the law feed into the hands of those whose basic tendencies are racist. It is now recognised that trafficking in human beings by internationally organised criminal entities is on a par, in terms of its profitability, with the international drugs trade. The unfortunate victims, who are often, although not always, from Third World countries, are lured into parting with whatever resources they may have in return for an illegally organised passage to the jurisdiction of choice. The nature of criminal activity is that if this problem is not addressed it will continue. There are no easy answers. It is a fact of life, for example, that a sizeable number of illegal immigrants are trafficked across the Border with Northern Ireland and from the UK generally. It is extremely difficult to deal with this because of the existence of the common travel area. Nevertheless, some preventative measures are quite clearly necessary if we are not to become the subject of large scale fraud at the hands of traffickers.

With regard to wider immigration policy, we must face realities and if we were to apply an immigration policy which is significantly more flexible and liberal in its features than those applying in the rest of the European Community, there is little doubt that probably over a relatively short period we would be left to deal with an immigration inflow with which we simply could not cope. It serves nobody's interests, apart from those of criminal organisations, to allow a situation to develop where there are effectively no effective immigration controls in place which are broadly in line with those of our European partners. It is an extremely important and complex issue and it must be addressed in a well informed, comprehensive and humanitarian way. We need to put resources into our asylum and immigration system and to support those whose job it is to make the system work fairly and effectively.

It is not a situation which is capable of simplistic solutions and there are times when difficult decisions are and will be called for. I am prepared to listen to and support sensible and realistic options and I will continue, with the support of the Government, to do all I can to implement the law in a fair, reasonable and humanitarian way. The policy of the Government is that all classes of immigrants, illegal or otherwise, will be treated fairly, humanely and in accordance with principles which respect their human dignity.

Mr. Connor

A few weeks ago the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs described the Government's refugee and asylum policy as ad hoc, chaotic, a shambles and doom laden. Some months ago, when speaking on the Immigration (Amendment) Bill, I described our policy on refugees and asylum and the Minister's poor understanding of them in broadly similar, although less strident, terms. However, the Minister of State would have a better knowledge of the facts. The Minister responded in a way that was hardly dignified. He described me as a bigot. That type of behaviour does nothing for the dignity of the Minister's office or of this House.

This country has always had a good international reputation as a champion of fundamental freedoms and in putting forward the values of democracy, the rule of law, human rights, the right of people to seek asylum or refugee status and the right of people to be free from persecution. Fifty years ago the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was founded. It was founded in the wake of the horrors of the Second World War and in a pioneering spirit. The basic principle of the office was humanitarianism. It created an effective international mechanism for the protection of human rights and an international system designed to guarantee the protection of the individual fleeing from persecution. Ireland supported that vision.

Unfortunately, it is apparent that this Minister no longer shares that vision and we are in serious danger of losing it. In the past two years, Ireland has operated a negative and hostile policy towards refugees and asylum seekers. We sought to reduce substantially the number of people seeking refugee and asylum status and we operated the most restrictive interpretation of international refugee law, particularly the definition of refugee in the 1951 convention. Everything possible has been done to make life uncomfortable for asylum seekers making applications and awaiting decisions. The queues outside the Department and in Mount Street eloquently attest to that.

Serious concern has been expressed in both Houses of the Oireachtas and by non-governmental organisations working in this field, including Amnesty International, the Irish Refugee Council and the Refugee Trust, about the proliferation of new laws, regulations and procedures designed to stem immigration and the flow of refugees and asylum seekers and about the increasingly restrictive interpretation of international refugee law, which often goes so far as to threaten to undermine the basic principles of refugee protection. While we are not alone in Europe in carrying out these practices, we should have no part of it in view of our experience of emigration.

We should give a lead by urging other member states to refrain from applying and legitimising regulations and practices which hinder the fair implementation of the right to asylum. We should call on the European Union to ensure there is a planned, common European asylum system that in no way undermines the 1951 Geneva Convention on the status of refugees, which, in practice, often has the effect of reducing the responsibility of EU member states for persons in need of international protection. We had an opportunity recently to give that lead at the Tampere Summit but we did not do so.

The Minister has tried at all times to give the impression that the country is swamped by refugees and asylum seekers, but that is by no means the truth. According to UNHCR statistics, from a peak in 1992 of nearly 700,000 asylum applications submitted in the 26 European asylum countries – it is recognised there are 26 European countries to which asylum seekers and refugees travel and that includes this country – the number of applications dropped steadily to over one-third of that figure, 253,000, in 1996. It rose slightly in 1997 and more substantially in 1998 to more than 359,000.

While the convention recognition rates have varied considerably among European asylum countries, the average rate has evolved from 7 per cent in 1992, 6.1 per cent in 1993, 8.4 per cent in 1994, 12.3 per cent in 1995, 11.5 per cent in 1996 and 11.4 per cent in 1997 to 9.2 per cent in 1998, the last year for which the UNHCR gave me figures. While the average rate of recognition under the convention in the 26 European asylum countries is low, it is way above the average rate of recognition in this country.

The number of asylum applications has dropped considerably in recent years and the number of positive decisions under the refugee convention has dropped accordingly, although the number of recognitions is higher than the percentage drop in the numbers seeking asylum. While the number of recognitions has not decreased markedly, the share of persons granted humanitarian status in those 26 countries grew considerably. For example, it was 11 per cent in 1998. That means the number of positive decisions under the refugee convention is in decline in those 26 countries.

The Minister gave some figures for this country. Of the 359,000 people who sought refugee or asylum status in those 26 countries in 1998, 4,626 applications were made here and of that number 77 were granted asylum status and 1,660 were refused. It was deemed that 790 applications were abandoned and I imagine the rest were carried forward, although that it is not stated. Of the 260,000 applications made throughout the European asylum area in 1997, 3,883 were submitted in Ireland and of that number 119 were recognised under the convention, 1,452 were refused and the rest were deemed to be abandoned or carried forward. In comparison to the hundreds of thousands of people who seek asylum in other European countries in a given year, the number of people who seek asylum here is very small and the number of those whose claims are recognised under the convention is extremely small. It is well below the average for the 26 countries in the asylum area, and far below the average for the 15 member states of the European Union. However, I recognise that a much more open approach is being taken by the appeals authority which has been set up. The authority is independent, but it does not have the resources it needs to do its work properly. Nevertheless its rate of recognition of genuine applicants is a huge improvement on the rate when the sole determining authority was the Minister and his Department.

All applications, at first instance, are made to the Department of Justice. The Minister stated in his speech that everybody gets a fair and reasonable hearing. If one were to look at the figures supplied to me by his Department, one could hardly agree with that. In 1999, up to 31 October, 5,497 people presented themselves seeking refugee or asylum status and the number who had their applications recognised at first instance was seven. Given such figures, surely the Minister is not trying to tell this House that his Department is affording a fair and reasonable system to applicants. Of the 5,497 people, less than half, maybe only one third, actually had their applications examined. What is happening, at least in the Minister's Department, is a shambles. Surely the Minister would not gainsay these figures because they are provided by his Department?

I am glad a large majority of the refusals by the Department are appealed to the appeals authority. The authority is building a reputation for greater fairness and a greater recognition of people's rights under the 1951 convention, but we need many more appeals commissioners. A huge increase in back-up staff is required.

On the broader issue of asylum and refugee policy, I query the Minister's concept of a safe country of origin because I have never heard him state it. Nowadays, many European countries consider that there are certain countries in which there is no serious risk of persecution. "Safe country of origin" is the jargon used and it is a plank of refugee policy in many countries. The most important criteria for assessment for any country, in my opinion and that of UNHCR, should be the observance of human rights and democracy in the country of origin. I note from reports in the newspapers that most of our refugees come from countries such as Algeria, former Romania, Nigeria, Kosovo, Angola, Somalia and others. Does the Minister consider Algeria, for instance, a safe country of origin? Does he consider Nigeria a safe country of origin? Does he consider Romania, from where most of the refugees arriving on our shores come, a safe country of origin?

This essential plank of asylum refugee policy has never been stated by the Minister. He possibly thinks Algeria is a safe country of origin, although in recent years thousands of people have been slaughtered in that country in one of the most appalling civil wars seen anywhere this century. Tens of thousands of people in that country live in fear and thousands have fled because of fear of the fanatical Islamic movement of which they might have fallen foul. They constitute one side of the civil war in that country. Tens of thousands more fear and have fled the state apparatus in Algeria because it is well known that the Algerian security forces have murdered thousands of people in recent years as part of their counter-insurgency programme.

Does the Minister consider Romania a safe country of origin for the thousands of Roma people who are being persecuted and discriminated against in that country? Tens of thousands of people are leaving Romania not because they want to travel abroad, but because the old historic tensions between gypsies, the native population and the Hungarian minority have increased since the fall of the Ceaucescu regime which persecuted the Roma people. The Romanian Government is unable or unwilling to stop the expulsion of families from villages, discrimination in the workplace and serious attacks on isolated communities of Roma people. As a result, thousands of them are making their way from south-eastern Europe to western Europe and a small percentage are coming to this country.

I hope the Minister does not consider Romania to be a safe country of origin to which to return these people, if that is what he must do under the powers given to him in the Immigration Act. The concept of a safe country of origin seems to be designed to introduce the presumption that asylum seekers from safe countries do not have a valid asylum claim. The Minister must believe that presumption.

I would like to say more about safe third countries, but I regret that as little as 15 minutes has been given to spokespersons on this issue.

Mr. O'Donovan

I congratulate the Minister on his handling of this issue. The number of refugees or asylum seekers coming to this country has increased substantially from a couple of hundred since he came to office. If we do not control the number of people seeking asylum, it could escalate to 100,000 in the next few years. There are 70,000 asylum seekers or refugees in the United Kingdom. It is likely that many of these, who are under pressure in Great Britain or who may not comply with the regulations, will come to this country via Northern Ireland.

During my recent travels in the west, the midlands, Waterford and Kilkenny it was obvious that the public is happy with the way the Minister has handled this issue. The last Government left office without recognising the problem. The Minister must be congratulated on providing extra staff, setting up a refugee applications centre, establishing a refugee legal service, appointing a refugee applications commissioner and an advisory board and amending the Refugee Act, 1996. He is committed to handling this problem in a humane way within the law. It is ludicrous for anyone to suggest otherwise.

Eight of my family of 11, including myself, were forced to emigrate. Many Members have spoken in recent months about how well the thousands of people who went to the United States were received. Recently I spoke to my sisters, who are now American citizens, about how they were received when they first went there. They were given rigorous medical checks and fingerprinted in the 1950s and 1960s. They had to produce a Garda certificate stating they had no criminal record and evidence that suitable accommodation was provided for them. They were not allowed to get social welfare, which is still the case. It has been suggested that people coming to this country should be fingerprinted, particularly if they have nothing to hide, because those coming from countries in north Africa, for example, have no records.

People who go to Germany, for example, can get work under EU regulations, but unless they are there for a couple of years they are not automatically entitled to social welfare or medical benefits. A few years ago people who went to the United States were obliged to work under certain restrictions, such as bi-annual checks by immigration officials and the police. Those who applied for and eventually got citizenship went through a rigorous and detailed check. However, when something similar happens here 30 or 40 years later, the Government is criticised and vilified.

It is a shame that last week in the Dáil the Opposition parties took advantage of comments made by the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell, and Deputy Callely to try to drive a wedge between the Government parties and to vilify the Minister.

Mr. Connor

That is rubbish. Deputy Callely's comments were inexcusable.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator O'Donovan, without interruption.

Mr. O'Donovan

I travelled through many counties recently, including Mayo, Galway, Offaly, Kerry and Kilkenny, and the public's view is that the Minister is handling this issue with great dignity and professionalism.

Mr. Connor

That is not true.

Mr. O'Donovan

There is serious concern that if the Minister does not apply the handbrake but allows a free-for-all, there will be a major problem. I am surprised Senator Connor is rowing in with the left, given the party of which he is a member.

Mr. Connor

I am expressing the views of the public.

Mr. O'Donovan

The Senator must have his ears closed.

Mr. Connor

I do not.

Mr. O'Donovan

I was in Boyle in County Roscommon recently and a practising solicitor, whom I have known for years, told me that the Minister is handling the issue correctly and with sensitivity and dignity.

Mr. Connor

Tell me the solicitor's name and I will tell the Senator more.

Mr. O'Donovan

When the Minister came to office two and a half years ago the problem of refugees or asylum seekers was growing. No document or Government policy envisaged the numbers increasing from 200 a year to 12,000 or 15,000 by 2000, as will be the case if the current rate of increase continues – the figure for September is 1,050.

Surely the public must realise that millions of pounds have been spent by the Minister in setting up various agencies? Regardless of the decision the Department or the Minister makes on genuine refugee applications, if people do not meet the criteria or comply with the regulations and their applications are rejected, they have the right of appeal. The Minister set up an appeals commissioner independent of the Department.

Mr. Connor

That is provided for in the Refugee Act which was introduced by Deputy Owen.

Mr. O'Donovan

If the figures I received are correct, up to 30 per cent of those who apply for asylum will be successful. That is not something to be sneered at.

A senior Garda officer, whom I met at a funeral outside the country during the week and who operates in the midlands, told me he is concerned that some refugees, who may have been brought in by international criminal gangs in the backs of lorries and trucks, are operating crime syndicates here. Criminal gangs from Cork and Dublin are terrifying innocent people in west Cork, parts of rural Kerry and the midlands. He mentioned incidents in places such as Mullingar, Athlone and Tullamore which happened as recently as two weeks ago.

If the Irish people who went to America in the 1950s and 1960s put one foot out of line, they were sent home. As someone who comes from a family of which eight were obliged to emigrate, I regret the remarks of Members about parity with America in the 1950s and 1960s. Those Irish people were fingerprinted, their medical records were checked and they had to present character references from the Garda. People are saying, however, that we were welcomed to America and that we are now throwing people from Europe out of Ireland.

Senator Connor mentioned Algeria. I do not know if Algeria is safe but the number of Algerians seeking asylum is a small proportion of those coming here. They are mostly Romanians, Poles and other east Europeans.

Mr. Connor

The Algerians are the third largest group.

Mr. O'Donovan

The Romanians and the Poles make up 60 per cent of those coming in. Is Romania a safe place? I have been to Romania.

Mr. Connor

So have I.

Mr. O'Donovan

My sister adopted two Romanian children. I was there on three occasions.

Mr. Connor

I would not like to be a Roma living in Romania.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator O'Donovan without interruption.

Mr. O'Donovan

Romania has applied to join the EU. It may be seven years before it is admitted but in ten years' time Romania will part of the European Union. If it is such a disastrous country, why is it in that position? It has had its problems, and I have seen them at first hand, but if some Romanians are coming here in a planned manner, supported by international criminal gangs, and they do not meet the criteria they must comply with the decision of the Department or the Appeals Commissioner.

This problem was discussed in the national media and in the Dáil last week. Unless I am reading the situation wrongly, the public think the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, is doing an excellent job.

I have been to the offices run by the Eastern Health Board on Mount Street on more than one occasion. The problems were not created by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. That myth should be buried. The problems in Mount Street arose because in the space of three months the number of people going there increased fivefold. If that were to happen in any other part of Ireland, a local social welfare office dealing with 200 people would find in the space of three months it is suddenly dealing with 1,000 people. There would be queues and there would be problems. The problems in this instance are, however, being tackled.

I do not have a problem with genuine asylum seekers. If they are accepted on the basis that they fulfil the criteria set out in the regulations and the appeals mechanism, set up in compliance with the UN convention, they must be treated more or less as Irish citizens. Those who come here in the backs of lorries and who come across the Border in taxis, many of them with criminal records, come with no intention of contributing to the State. Even they are treated humanely.

The Minister and the Department initially had to handle this matter with the very few staff left by the last Government. Now millions are being spent to deal with it – medical and legal assistance are being made available, there are interpreters and there is an appeals mechanism under an Appeals Commissioner. All that has been put in place in less than two years by the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, but he is criticised for that.

It is a sad reflection on the Opposition that when it has nothing else with which to attack the Government, it latches on to a public difference between a Deputy and Minister of State. The Opposition is aware it cannot fault the Government, that there will be a budget this week which will be of enormous benefit to everyone in the State. For that reason it is using this to drive a wedge between the Government parties. It has failed dismally. The Minister is winning the hearts and minds of the people. Although I cannot comment on the Dublin area, public opinion elsewhere in the State reflects that the Minister is doing an excellent job. The manner in which he is handling this should be complimented.

If next January 5,000 applicants arrive and there is a queue at the Eastern Health Board office – nothing to do with the Minister – there will be uproar again. His attitude is sensible, humane, complies with the UN convention which deals with refugees and is within the laws of the land. He is doing everything to deal with this new problem which faces the State.

Ten years ago no one would have imagined people seeking asylum in Ireland. Now because the economy is doing well, organised traffickers of human beings divert people to this country because they know they will be well treated here. The people to whom I spoke when I visited Mount Street were not concerned with the Minister or the health board. They were happy to wait and have their applications processed, they felt they were being humanely treated. Those who exaggerate the problem are trying to make it into a political football. No one I spoke to in Mount Street was denigratory about the Minister or the health board. They felt they are getting a fair deal.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Before I call Senator Norris, I remind Members that the statements are due to conclude at 5 p.m. I am anxious to call as many Senators as possible.

Mr. Norris

I understand we have 15 minutes but I will try to be brief so others can speak.

I listened to the Minister's speech with interest. I agree the debate should be carried out in a calm, rational and reasonable fashion. He is absolutely right. The Minister is a decent man with whom I get along well. I remember coming to his assistance on "Questions and Answers" when he was put in a nasty spot by being asked what way he would vote in a secret ballot. There is no source of enmity between the Minister and me.

I do, however, have criticisms to make. The first is a matter of language. Calm, reasonable, rational – yes. Can there not be compassion as well? There is not a word of compassion for refugees in the Minister's speech. The Minister, when this was debated in the other House, spoke passionately about the need to treat refugees in a feeling and caring manner.

Mr. Connor

He was in Opposition then.

Mr. Norris

I would like to see more of that in the Minister's pronouncements. If we deal with this only in a calm, reasonable manner we forget the human element and we return to the extraordinary situation at this time of the year where we echo those who said there is no room at the inn for people in a desperate situation.

The Minister talked about the law having to be brought up to date with contemporary values and realities. He said it must be applied fairly and that there must be systems in place to ensure all applications for asylum are dealt with in an efficient and effective manner. The Minister knows this is not the case at the moment. I accept there has been an increase in numbers but it has not been huge in relative European terms. The number of people coming here is comparatively small. We should rapidly put in place the machinery necessary to deal with them.

The scenes outside Mount Street are a cause of great concern for me. A year ago, when I tabled my motion on the issue in this House, a similar situation occurred outside the Minister's own Department, where people had to queue for hours in the rain. This is unacceptable. We should have dealt with it earlier. I am glad to see that something may be done now.

The Minister stated that people are being treated reasonably and that, as far the Department is concerned, a full service is being provided for all applicants at all times. I take it that he is not just referring to his own responsibilities but to the responsibilities of all those involved, including the Eastern Health Board.

The conditions which people are enduring were recorded in an article in Ireland on Sunday on 14 November. It reads:

"We are here for justice", an African man in the queue shouts out. The call for "justice" ripples through the 300-strong line like an echo. Outside the Department of Justice on this cold grey morning, justice is in very short supply.

Standing there since 5am, having been erroneously told the day before that the refugee application centre in Mount Street would be open, desperation is etched on people's faces. Two Nigerian women hug their babies to their chests and stare ahead blankly.

Another African woman sits on a wall crying, her shoulders shudder but she doesn't make a sound – she just sits there silently sobbing.

Young men at the top of the queue are more vocal in their frustration. "Why don't they just let us in to sit down?" one man asks the gardaí.

He can see rows of empty seats through the closed glass doors. Another man attempts to calm him down which just makes the first more irritated. "I just want to ask them a question, that's all". . . . ."I have to give this note to my welfare officer, I was told to collect a card", a young black man is interceding with the gardaí. His name is Patrick. He has walked miles to get here, he has no money, he has had enough. The tears slowly trickle down his face. The two gardaí who are around the same age look like they don't know what to do.

To see a woman cry is upsetting, but there is something shocking about a man weeping. Tears flow down his face dripping on to his jacket. This is sheer frustration, not sorrow. In the end, one of the gardaí calls a porter, who takes a note in. People are still milling around in a state of confusion unsure whether they will be seen or not, trying to explain to others what is going on.

Some might say that this is sheer sentimentality. It is sentiment and I make no apology for it. It is human sentiment, and that is what is lacking in the Minister's approach. I appeal to him to look at this in a much more human light. That raises questions about the degree to which a full service is being provided at all times in all places. I cannot believe that it is.

The Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, did this country a service by raising this issue in the manner she did. It took great courage and intellectual rigour and I am sure she was not thanked for it within all sections of Government. I do not want to drive a wedge between the partners in this generally very good Government, but it is important that one listens to criticisms from within, from those committed to keeping the Government going. One has to listen very carefully to them.

In that context I felt very sad at the intervention of Deputies Callely and Noel Ahern. Deputy Callely spoke about his gut feelings. Those feelings should have stayed exactly where they originated, in his gut. He should not have inflicted his political flatulence on the unfortunate plain people of Ireland. Deputy Noel Ahern spoke about concern, rightly or wrongly, felt by people about being threatened by asylum seekers and who feel they are in competition for housing and jobs. If he does not know whether it is right or wrong why did he bleat about it? I remind the House that Deputy Noel Ahern is not remarkable for his strongly expressed progressive views on social matters. It is rather worrying that this kind of chorus is going on in the background. It seemed like a kind of political tic-tac, but I am glad certain movements have been made since this little spat developed. I also listened to Deputy Callely on the radio. When he was challenged to produce some facts he did not have them. Yet, he had made his mind up. With the greatest of respect to Senator O'Donovan—

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is not usual to refer to Members of the other House even though their recent comments might be relevant to the ongoing debate.

Mr. Norris

I have ended that part of what I wanted to say. Senator O'Donovan is a very decent man but again he seemed to be speaking from a general feeling. He said, for example, that 60 per cent of refugees are Polish or Romanian. I am sure that on reflection he will accept that is not correct. It would be a pity if we were to put that kind of misinformation on the record of the House.

The Minister referred to genuine refugees. I have a problem with this kind of language. I know the Minister is very hard on those who feel economic refugees have a certain basis for their claim, although we cannot allow all of them in. Others talk about genuine asylum seekers. The Minister spoke about genuine refugees. Anybody can seek asylum. It is a perfectly legitimate claim to make. It then has to be decided, but all who seek asylum are genuine asylum seekers. They may not have their claims upheld.

The Minister said that our immigrants must not be allowed to become the subject of criminal or racist attack. Language is very important. Talking about the country being swamped is dangerous. Talking about throwing people out is dangerous. This business of fingerprinting is grossly offensive. If it happened to Irish immigrants in America I bet they kicked up hell about it and did not lie down passively. It certainly does not happen nowadays. That happened to legal immigrants. What about the thousands of illegals for whom we campaigned vigorously during the years?

The Minister also referred to the training of specialists by the UNHCR and the necessary training for dealing with sensitive matters such as gender issues and victims of trauma and violence. I remind him that we also cover the question of sexual orientation in the Bill. There is need for particular training and sensitivity. I ask him to ensure those charged with responsibility for interviewing people are made aware of this.

There is reference to the Eastern Health Board refugee unit and the attempts to house asylum seekers. The notice in the newspaper was a scandal. Landlords were required to provide a written undertaking that they conformed with the fire regulations. Unscrupulous landlords will easily do that. No paper ever refused ink. It is a requirement of those housing refugees to ensure there is no danger that they will be killed. I have seen places all over the city crammed to the ceiling with refugees by unscrupulous landlords. I have no doubt whatever that they are a fire hazard. It is a responsibility of Government to ensure this situation is not exacerbated.

With regard to the numbers of refugees and the concern about them, we need people with skills. A leading economist has predicted that Ireland will have to gear itself for the arrival of as many as 160,000 immigrants over the next seven years if the labour market requirements of the Government's £40 billion national plan are to be properly implemented. The former Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Mervyn Taylor, was reported in The Irish Times of Friday, 19 November as saying that history showed that

when asylum-seekers and refugees come to a country they make a contribution to that country out of all proportion to what they take. They create employment instead of taking it, and that has been proven time and time again.

Mr. Connor

Hear, hear.

Mr. Norris

I am not blaming the Minister personally, but his Department has an atrocious record during the years. This was the Department which actively blocked the entry to this country before and during the Second World War of those who could have been saved from Hitler's gas chambers. The same arguments used, sometimes in this House but widespread in the country, were used against those defenceless people. I am glad Senator Connor raised the question of refoulement, third country referral and so on. It is appalling to think of people being sent back to places where they will be exposed to risk. Ireland is not alone in this. I am not attacking my own country on this issue. Sweden, which we all think of as a haven of human rights, recently returned a man to Iran when it was virtually guaranteed that he would be executed. As mentioned, the referral back of people to Algeria is extraordinarily dangerous. We cannot support this.

To put the debate in context, the people we have here need an education. I am sure the Minister will be in a position to press his colleagues, including the Minister for Education and Science who is an extremely decent man, to try to make additional moneys available, particularly for inner city schools where the influx of refugee children certainly distorts classes, although this is not their fault. They also tend to mop up all the extra remedial teaching available, which will create resentment. On the other hand, school teachers see this group of children as an advantage. An article in the education supplement in The Irish Times of 16 November read:

Talk to teachers about refugee children and the chances are they'll tell you that most of them are well-mannered, bright and anxious to learn. They bring welcome new cultural dimensions to the schools they attend. In large part, their parents are well educated and keen for their children to succeed.

"They're a lot more motivated than the locals," is one teacher's observation.

However, they are also good for the Irish children. The principal of a second level Dublin school said:

They've shown our lads a completely different side of life and helped them to understand what other people have had to deal with. Racism becomes much less of an issue when you become acquainted with people from other cultures.

That is an important point. I would point out that there are a small number of unaccompanied children, 36 under the age of 18, bearing up in a particularly difficult and vulnerable situation.

People have talked about the Marian Finucane radio programme. I listened to that programme and I was thoroughly ashamed of some of the people who spoke. An ignorant, loud-mouthed man rang up to complain about this country being swamped and people getting jobs and money, but where was he ringing from? He was ringing from Birmingham. If Britain had not taken him in, where would he be? He was polluting our airwaves with his racist poison but I hope the people of Ireland were intelligent enough to see the irony of his situation.

As regards fingerprinting, only criminals are fingerprinted in this country. Are we assuming that all these people are criminals? Let us have some facts and figures about the criminal gangs involved in bringing these people into the country.

I hope I have not said anything personally offensive to the Minister, but I ask him to examine the areas I have outlined.

Ms Keogh

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to this debate. I welcome the remarks of the Minister, particularly in relation to the elements of policy he described.

This nation is more accustomed to emigration than immigration and the rapid pace of change at home and abroad is forcing us to confront new realities, sometimes we do not do so very well. Over many decades, many people have fled oppression and poverty in poorer countries and migrated to the richer and freer pastures of Europe. The collapse of communism in 1989 added to this flow. There is a westward movement of people disturbed and dislocated by the crumbling of their own societies.

Ireland might have remained untouched by this movement but for our spectacular economic success from the mid-1990s onwards. For the first time, this country has become a destination for migrants, just like any other developed European country, but the sudden surge of immigration, particularly illegal immigration, came as a huge shock to the system here. We were unprepared for it and we have struggled to cope in social, political and administrative terms. We need to respond to the challenge in a comprehensive fashion because if we do not, the result will be considerable hardship for thousands of immigrants as well as rising social tensions, which we have already seen.

Racism and intolerance have increased in Ireland – perhaps it always existed but it was not obvious until now. Failure to address the problems associated with immigration could pose a serious threat to social cohesion and that should not be allowed to happen. Over the coming years, due to our economic success, we will continue to see the large-scale movement of migrants across western Europe to Ireland and we must have a formal policy to deal with that reality. I welcome the Minister's openness in this regard and I have some suggestions in relation to the policy area.

With our history of mass emigration, we should have a greater understanding and a more enlightened approach to immigration. We have heard anecdotal evidence here today about the attitudes of Irish people – it is a little like pulling up the trapdoor after the person has got in. It is extraordinary to hear people say that Ireland should be for the Irish. One woman said, "We have just got up off our knees, so why should we not look after ourselves?" As we all know, were it not for the millions of people who fled economic deprivation here, particularly in this century, this country would perhaps be different from what it is today. Tens of thousands of Irish people were forced by economic circumstances to go abroad in search of a livelihood and many of them did so illegally. Our experience in that regard should inform our national response to immigrants coming here.

My party believes that our policy in relation to immigration should be rights based. It should uphold and vindicate the rights of our visitors, immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees in line with our international obligations in a transparent and accountable way. It must be reasonable because it needs to be responsive to the shortage of workers in the Irish labour market. It must be responsible also and recognise that we cannot operate an open door immigration policy. If we base our policies on those particular areas, it will enable us to deal with the immigration issue in a systematic way, but we need the administrative back-up to do that. We need a comprehensive policy framework and clearer policy objectives for the different groups involved. For asylum seekers we have to have the administrative arrangements in place to ensure that all those seeking asylum here have their applications dealt with fairly and speedily. These people have welfare and other service needs to which there should be a co-ordinated policy response. I know the Minister is aware of that.

For those people who have been granted refugee status we have to provide the necessary support systems so that they can integrate fully into Irish society. We need a coherent plan for the management of immigration so that non-EU nationals can be brought in to help address the skills shortages which are threatening the sustainability of our economic growth. Identifying the different groups serves an important purpose. Not every foreign person here is an asylum seeker. Not every asylum seeker here would be living on welfare if their applications had been processed speedily. We know there are logjams in the system.

We have to accept, and this will be difficult for some Irish people, that a large number of foreign nationals will be a reality in Irish society from now on. From that it follows that the promotion of tolerance and acceptance must be a key aim of public policy in the years ahead. That is essential if we are to prevent the emergence here of the kind of racism and neo-fascism which is such a blot on the social and political landscape of many other European Union countries. The growth of those attitudes throughout western Europe is frightening.

Earlier today we welcomed the outcome of the discussions in Northern Ireland and congratulated people on their appointment to executive posts. This is a time when the Government and the Irish people, North and South, are embracing a new dispensation firmly based on respect for diversity and allegiance and establishing a human rights commission in this jurisdiction. The way we deal with non-nationals in this new context must be compatible with our international obligations and natural justice. These obligations are derived from the 1951 United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees. We have to offer protection to people who have a well-grounded fear of persecution in their own countries and who are unable to avail of the protection of their own authorities. We have a commitment in that regard.

I am sure the Minister is tired of hearing about the difficulties with administrative arrangements in his Department. The influx of people took the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform by surprise. The number of people applying for asylum has increased dramatically in the past number of years and that has placed an intolerable burden on the system. My party's view is that a specialist executive agency should be established to handle all applications for asylum. It would operate under the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and perhaps subsume the existing asylum task force. That would require resources of staff and accommodation. The current shortage of resources is contributing to long delays in the system which leaves thousands of asylum seekers in a legal limbo while their cases await final determination. These people are dependent on the State for welfare and housing support for long periods, sometimes years. It is a bit of a "penny wise, pound foolish" policy.

Speeding up the process would help reduce the number of applicants in need of housing and welfare support and would result in consequent savings for the Exchequer. Speed of process is the key issue in reforming and restoring credibility in our asylum procedures. Administrative delays are also a pull factor in attracting asylum seekers to Ireland, as people who might be more properly classified as economic migrants recognise that the slow pace of the process allows them to live here for a number of years while their cases are being determined, which creates its own difficulties. Of course, care must be taken to ensure all the facilities are in place so the dignity of individuals is respected while they are going through the system.

Improved controls at all points of entry to the State are clearly required as part of a coherent immigration policy. Currently there are tight controls at ports and airports – we have all heard of the women who could not go to the wedding and who were returned together with their presents. As the Minister said, there is a difficulty in this regard as controls on the Border with Northern Ireland are very lax, allowing many people enter the country illegally. Unfortunately, this has been used by people who are profiting from illegal immigration. Cross-Border police co-operation has a vital role to play in the control of illegal trafficking of people.

We must ensure that people with a genuine right of entry to the country are allowed come and go unhindered. People should have nothing to fear from the operation of proper immigration controls at points of entry. It is a difficult matter as one must ensure that those who are genuinely in need of asylum are not deterred from coming here. We must ensure our obligations are fulfilled. New legislation to cover the illegal trafficking of people must be vigorously enforced.

There are other issues which we must examine, such as the repatriation of people who are denied status as refugees. Senator Norris spoke about sending people back to situations which are intol erable, something we obviously do not wish to do. In order to protect and sustain the integrity of the asylum process, and in line with UNHCR policy, the State must deal firmly and fairly with those denied refugee status following due legal process.

It is extremely important that people whose applications for asylum are successful and who are granted refugee status with the right of residence are properly integrated into society. This has been successfully achieved with the so-called programme refugees from countries such as Vietnam – this dates back to 1979 – Bosnia and, more recently, Kosovo. These people have been integrated well and are able to participate fully in Irish society. Many of them have taken out Irish citizenship. The current inflow presents a much greater challenge. We need to resource and perhaps revamp the Refugee Agency to co-ordinate the temporary integration and welfare needs of asylum seekers. This would go a long way towards managing the situation for those already in the country.

This is a very emotive issue. One of the things which concerns me most is that we should welcome people allowed to remain here who come because of their various needs or because they wish to do so for their own development. This should be based on a proper policy framework so that we ensure our economy performs to its maximum potential and that we adapt to its changing needs. We should invite economic immigrants and look after them properly. We do not want the spectre of so-called guest workers in Germany who are treated very badly in many cases. It is essential that we have a proper structure in terms of work permits.

I am delighted we have had the opportunity to discuss this issue in a more enlightened forum. Emotive language in this context is not very helpful for the very people we should be looking after, namely, those who come to our shores and who should be assured of proper Irish hospitality.

Dr. Henry

I welcome the Minister. The first issue I wish to address is the problems which arise for families of children born here. A child born in this country to parents from abroad is entitled to be a citizen of the State. Indeed, if the child is born on the island of Ireland he or she is entitled to be a citizen. In view of the celebrations this week, I do not think anybody would like to upset that part of the Belfast Agreement which includes such provision. However, many of these families have approached me as they do not seem to be getting as much information as they need to assure them of their position.

I am sure the Minister will remember that under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a child is entitled to the care and comfort of his or her parents. In 1990 a case was taken by Fajujonu against the Minister and it was decided by the Supreme Court that a child born here was entitled to the care and comfort of his or her parents. Therefore, the parents of children born here are entitled to stay here. They may not be entitled to citizenship, but my information is that they are entitled to work, even if they do not have work permits, and that they are also entitled to set up businesses of their own. I would be very grateful if the Minister would clarify this matter as this is the information I have been given. Yet I find that parents of these children are asked for work permits when they seek employment. As the Minister is aware, it is proving very difficult for people to get work permits.

Another cause of concern for these people is that their other children will be sent home. The Supreme Court case in 1990 also decided that the child was entitled to the care and comfort of siblings. It should be made absolutely clear to these people that there should be no worry about other children being sent home. This is a cause of continual distress for parents. If Members do not know these people, then some of the ushers certainly do as they and I have implored them to get in out of the rain rather than stand with their children at the gates of Leinster House. I told them I would ask the Minister at the first opportunity to clarify this matter and I am now asking him to do so.

There is tremendous confusion in this area. As the Minister said, there is trafficking to a certain extent from other countries. It is all too easy for people from the UK in particular to see the advantage of coming here and having a child. This has led to very serious problems for both mothers and babies. For example, a baby was born on one of the Stena Line ships the other day as it was approaching Dún Laoghaire. Fortunately there were two doctors on board, one of whom was a non-EU national who was coming to take up a post in Ireland. He had more experience of dealing with childbirth than the Irish doctor, so it was fortunate he was on board.

Another problem, which we have pointed out to the various departments in maternity hospitals, is that many of these refugee women leave it very late in seeking ante-natal care in case they are deported. We must ensure it is made clear that this will not happen. The average state of pregnancy at which refugee women seek ante-natal care is about 26 or 28 weeks, whereas Irish women go for ante-natal care at about ten to 12 weeks. No one in the House or in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform wants to see women depriving themselves and their unborn children of good ante-natal care because of the fear that they might be deported. It is important this area be clarified so that people recognise that we have a humane policy towards those who are pregnant. That is important because it is not a policy we want to change. While many more children are being born now than was the case ten years ago, the situation in ten years' time may have changed again because the economic and political circumstances in the countries from which these people come may have changed considerably.

It is embarrassing if one works in the health services to hear some of the comments made about non-EU nationals. As the Minister knows, that group of people takes up most medical posts outside Dublin, Cork, Galway and Limerick. Without them, we would be in the most appalling position. Perhaps the Minister could urge restraint towards these people, and I am sure he will be careful to be moderate in the language he uses. A young African doctor was shot at by a gang of youths in a supermarket carpark in Letterkenny the other day. Someone said to me that if, years ago, they saw a black man they always thought he was a doctor. Now they think he is a refugee. The Minister pointed out that there is tremendous confusion about the various categories of immigrant in Ireland. We need to be careful it does not rebound on us. We receive an enormous income from non-EU nationals who come to Ireland as students and it is terrible how many of them have said they have become conscious of racism in the past years. We need to address this carefully.

Other speakers rightly pointed out that we have a need for immigration in certain areas of employment. Reading the report of An Bord Glas, unless we bring in more Latvian potato workers to north County Dublin I do not know how the crops there will be dealt with next year. We do not have an immigration policy. However, we need to debate it before legislation is introduced. Will the Minister ask his Department to organise seminars, especially in areas where there have been problems? That said, when those areas where public representatives have suggested there are problems are investigated, none appear to exist. I have been told there are great complaints among workers in the medical profession about having to deal with refugees. I have not found this to be the case.

Professor Tom O'Dowd of the department of general practice and community medicine pointed out in a letter to The Irish Times recently that our main concern is that 50 per cent of immigrants are not coming forward for medical check-ups because they are afraid that, if they have some type of health problem, they may not be allowed to stay. Senator O'Donovan pointed out that legal immigrants used to have such checks when they went to America but, as Senator Norris pointed out, the illegal immigrants did not have any such checks. These people must know that our system allows for them all to be taken in and to have proper health checks. This is extraordinarily important. Diseases which cannot be satisfactorily treated in their own countries can be treated here.

Will the Minister bring forward a White Paper before he introduces legislation? This could be written by the Department before Christmas and that would give us a chance to examine it during the Christmas recess. We would then be in a better position to address whatever legislation might come forward. We have no idea how many casual workers we need. We must decide this and also if they must come alone or may be allowed to bring their families. Will they be like the guest workers in Germany or will the situation be more like the way it was for Irish people going to Scotland for seasonal work?

Some 5,497 applications for asylum were received by the end of October 1999. Some 210 were withdrawn before any decision could be made. Only seven were initially recognised as refugees and 140 were refused, with 85 being deemed abandoned and 16 manifestly unfounded. This leaves a total of 5,065 applications to be dealt with. I am sure the people the Minister has put to work in Lower Mount Street are doing their best, but is obvious much more help is needed. I applaud the Minister for saying that he will ensure more assistance is provided. More training is also needed. Perhaps the Minister could call on the skills of some refugees for assistance. For example, many are good linguists. I stated in the House previously that I dealt with a girl who spoke Latvian, Russian, German, Norwegian and English. Perhaps the skills of such people could be better utilised in dealing with refugees so that the applications process could be speeded up.

I would be grateful if the Minister would ensure that clarification is given to the families of citizens born here to refugees, asylum seekers or immigrants because a great deal of unwarranted distress is being caused to those families.

Mr. D. Kiely

I am delighted that we are having this debate. Any small disturbance in the country seems suddenly to become a crisis. I never thought I would see the day when I would speak on the issue of people entering the country, legally or illegally, seeking work. It is a sign of how well the economy is being managed by the Government. We now have practically full employment because of huge job creation. It is a great change from when I was young. I listened with interest to Senator O'Donovan who said eight members of his family had to emigrate. Twelve of mine had to emigrate because there were no prospects for us. We could not even get a job picking potatoes. I am delighted the Government has made such a tremendous job of running the economy.

One speaker made an issue of fingerprinting. It is the norm for anyone entering the United States to be fingerprinted. Not only that, they also at one stage had to enlist and do their stint in the army. They had to serve the country while they were there. Fingerprinting is the norm in every European country. I was fingerprinted when I entered the United States some 30 years ago, as were all my family who emigrated there. As for queues, I am recently returned from the United States having been there at the weekend. I saw queues a mile long at the immigration centre in New York city and that is not an exaggeration. Such problems exist everywhere, but when they happen in a small country like Ireland it causes a great disturbance.

Some people believe the Minister is hostile to refugees, but he was the first to bring them to his county and I was delighted to be by his side when those victims of the Kosovo crisis arrived. I spoke about that in the House previously. There is no doubt that when people make statements in the House they need to know the facts. No one can speak with greater authority on the subject under discussion at present than a former emigrant who had to undergo the immigration process and be fingerprinted. Those records will exist until I depart this world and there is nothing wrong with that.

It was alleged that the Minister said the country was being swamped by asylum seekers. I read an article in this morning's edition of The Irish Times which stated that the Minister never made that comment. Since this Minister took up office, more legislation from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has passed through this House than ever before. Not alone was the immigration issue in a shambles before he took up office, with only 22 people employed to deal with it, but the Prison Service was also in a shambles and crime levels had reached an all time high. The Department was in chaos, but the Minister put measures in place to deal with those problems. Suddenly, we have an immigration crisis due to the fact that there was a queue in Mount Street on a particular day.

A previous speaker referred to Nigerians coming into this country. I checked with various airlines and I do not think there is any direct flight into Ireland from Nigeria.

Mr. Connor

Did the Senator read the Department's figures?

Mr. D. Kiely

The number of Nigerians appearing on our doorsteps is amazing. A staggering 82 per cent of the people who are seeking political asylum do not originate here. They originate in other countries and are being smuggled across the Border. Taxi drivers from Northern Ireland are having a field day dropping these people off at Dublin Airport. That is a racket which must be addressed. The serious problem of organised crime must also be dealt with.

There is a huge difference between an asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant. Asylum seekers must be welcomed into the country and integrated into our communities. They should be treated properly, as we would hope to be treated if we were to seek asylum in another country.

Twelve members of my family, myself included, emigrated from this country. However, we could not leave until we had secured a job and accommodation in the country to which we were travelling. Moreover, the person who was bringing us over was obliged to have a substantial amount of money in the bank to cover our expenses if we lost our jobs and to ensure that we would not be taking money from the State. Irish people were proud to work in countries such as Britain and the United States.

Some 22 people were employed in the Department under the previous Government to deal with thousands of applications. There are currently 120 people employed for this purpose and some 6,000 interviews are taking place. The one stop shop has been established in Mount Street, an independent appeals mechanism has been put in place, legal aid and health facilities are being provided and a documentation centre has been set up.

I was honoured to see the Minister to the forefront in dealing with the Kosovo crisis. My fellow county people opened their arms to the Kosovars because of the conflict which existed in that country. I would like to know what crises are ongoing in the home countries of some of the asylum applicants. Are there any crises at all? Perhaps their mothers threw some of them out of home. We must address these matters.

We must open our arms to asylum seekers whose needs are genuine. I am sure Irish people would accept that such people should be treated with respect. Irish people sought refuge in other countries, often in times of conflict, and were accepted there. The Government is committed to ensuring that genuine asylum seekers are dealt with in a proper and humane manner. I congratulate them for the job they are doing in this regard.

Mr. Costello

Perhaps Senator Ó Murchú, Senator Quinn and I could share the remaining time equally.

An Cathaoirleach

That would be very fair.

Mr. Costello

We have called for a debate on the immigration issue for some time. It is desirable that Senators have an opportunity to record their views on the matter from time to time. This issue is very much in the public glare at present. The Minister stated that the policy of the Government is that all classes of immigrants, illegal or otherwise, will be treated fairly, humanely and in accordance with principles which respect their human dignity. I do not disagree with the Minister on that point and I do not doubt he intends to ensure that everyone who comes to these shores receives a fair hearing. However, I have some difficulty with the language the Minister used in his speech today and on previous occasions.

When the Minister speaks about "genuine refugees" the suggestion is that those who are not genuine are to be treated differently. He speaks in strong terms about trafficking and criminal gangs. He speaks about "illegal" asylum seekers and those who come into this country from Northern Ireland and Britain. There is a feeling that the Minister is not a dispassionate observer of the situation with which he is dealing. Most of the contributions from the Fianna Fáil benches were in the same vein. I was not pleased with Senator O'Donovan's suggestion in regard to a large-scale level of criminal activity when he had no evidence to back that up. Senator Kiely also spoke about organised crime. I recall Senator Kiely chartering an Aer Lingus plane, some time in the past decade, to bring Irish people to America when visas were being allocated. Many of those Irish people were illegal economic immigrants in the United States. We must bear that in mind and try to get a balanced view of the current situation.

The 1990s have been an era of prosperity for us. That prosperity has resulted in problems such as the housing and traffic crises. We are also faced with an immigration crisis whereas we had an emigration crisis in the 1980s when 400,000 Irish people left our shores. At most, there are 10,000 immigrants in this country and, although the Minister did not provide exact figures, that is certainly less than one quarter of the number of people who left these shores each year during the 1980s. The total figure for immigrants to this country in the 1990s alone is 10,000. We must put these figures in perspective.

People came here because of the wars in the Balkans in the 1990s and the wars in Africa, in Somalia, Ethiopia, Rwanda and elsewhere. We have two types of refugee. Probably the main problem we face is that no distinction has been made in this regard. People have come here to flee persecution in their own countries, about which there is no doubt. A greater number have fled poverty in their own countries. We must remember that during and since the Famine almost all Irish people went abroad to flee poverty. Let us remember that the Irish were economic refugees.

I agree very much with the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace that it is time we recognised that and put in place two separate structures – one for people whom one might call bona fide asylum seekers fleeing persecution in their own countries and another for those fleeing poverty. I am not sure whether the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform should deal with both categories. We must separate the categories and look at this issue in the first instance in the context of this country's self-interest in that we are now an economic giant, in terms relative to our population, and in need of a much greater labour force. It is claimed that the implementation of the national development plan will require 150,000 to 160,000 recruits to the workforce. I am sure it will be well in excess of that figure – over 200,000.

Let us look at this issue in that context first and also in terms of cultural pluralism. We are not and never have been a multi-cultural society. Perhaps it is not a bad thing if we look at multi-culturalism as a healthy rather than negative development in terms of our country's progress and consider how we will integrate it into our schools and education process. Immigrants are allowed attend primary and post primary school but have been disbarred from third level education unless their application has been successful.

My experience of the way asylum seekers and refugees have been treated in my constituency has not been good. There is racism abroad. People have been burned out of their homes, have had their businesses rammed by cars and there has been much graffiti on the walls and many insults. It is becoming increasingly dangerous, given the huge concentration of asylum seekers and refugees in the Dublin North-Central constituency. The Minister agrees with that and has indicated that he wishes to address this issue by ensuring these people are not concentrated in areas in which they have been up to now.

We must move on the work permits issue. It seems outrageous that only a handful of people have been granted work permits given the large number, somewhere in the region of 2,000, who are entitled to work under the new guidelines. We need a fresh approach to the problem. Rather than looking to the past, we must look to the future as this will be an ongoing issue. We must put proper structures in place to ensure personal, economic and cultural integration. We see this issue as a problem but it could well be an asset.

Labhrás Ó Murchú

I agree with Senator Costello that this debate should take place. The Minister said he hoped the debate would be calm, rational and reasonable. That is the tone we should adopt when examining the problem we are now discussing. Nobody could, in fairness, criticise the Minister on the manner in which he has handled what is an exceptionally complex issue. It is an organic issue and not one which remains the same on any one day. Any fair-minded person would have to admit that any difficulties which arose did so because the numbers rose considerably.

When one looks at the numbers, many issues must be considered. We must have a structure in place to ensure those who are legitimate refugees get what is their right and in a generous manner. On the other hand, the general public expect that their security should be considered and that we would ensure that no difficulties would be planted now from which we might subsequently reap a harvest with which we might not be happy. That is the Minister's responsibility and I do not believe any person in public life or, indeed, any citizen would thank the Minister in future years if he did not do what is required of him. It must be anathema to any Irish person and, I am sure, a person from the kingdom of Kerry, for it to be suggested that he was not approaching this issue in a manner expected of his office and in a humanitarian way. Some months ago in the House I congratulated the Minister and the people of Kerry on the manner in which they welcomed refugees into their community. There was no restrictive approach to that; it was a generous and spontaneous response. It was evident that the refugees observed that and took it on board.

We all agree it is part of the Irish tradition to endeavour in any way possible to open our doors and our hearts to people in need. We do not even have to point to the manner in which Irish people were received in any other country, and we should not diminish that as part of the debate. In spite of some of the peripheral difficulties, Irish people were, by and large, well received in America. They integrated, prospered and, indeed, many became the architects of the American legislative system, as we are well aware, and they are held in high esteem as an ethnic group.

I am sure the same is true of those who travelled to Britain but there is a different issue of a historical nature involved there. We should not forget that many of the people who emigrated to Britain had to do so precisely because of British policies towards this country. They may not have had to emigrate had those policies not been inflicted on the people – policies which affected our opportunities and which did not enable us to develop as fully as we might have.

There is one great danger in the debate which has taken place on those coming from abroad. It is easy to achieve an emotive headline and to arouse certain passions, even by way of a photograph, which should not be part of such a debate. Many of the refugees coming to Ireland are articulate, intelligent and sensitive and they are capable of picking up vibes from this type of publicity. I would not like any human being to feel they had less dignity than another or were less entitled to help or support than another. That would not be the wish of the people. For that reason, some issues should be above the normal cut and thrust of politics and should not have to bow to political expediency. I refer to issues of a humanitarian nature such as this. I appeal to people in political life, and particularly the media, to adopt a more sensitive attitude to this issue and not to endeavour to inflict wounds of a political nature or otherwise. We should all unite in a cohesive manner to help those coming into this country.

We have by no means reached the end of this problem. Many people forecast that it is only the tip of the iceberg. It is important to recognise that whatever steps are taken, in the context of our legal or international obligations and on a humanitarian basis, we will need the support of the community to make our policies work. The policies should not only help people entering Ireland but also enhance this community. I have never seen a situation yet where interaction between different cultures did not benefit each culture. The Irish people are well aware of that. We may not have been a multi-cultural society but there are few nationalities who have travelled so extensively in Europe and other countries. We were Europeans long before the concept of a European Community was devised. Irish people would benefit from those people who are legally brought into this country and integrated into this community. We would benefit from their culture. I would be sad if I thought that barriers were to be erected between those fine people, many of whom are well deserving of every opportunity we would give them. It would be sad if unnecessary artificial barriers were created through a debate which in itself is not necessarily helpful and also by the manner in which the media respond to that debate.

I have always felt that the Minister acted in a decisive, positive and sensitive manner. However, the people who made contributions in this House did so from a base of compassion as well. The only way we can ensure the best results is to work together for the common good, particularly on humanitarian grounds.

Mr. Quinn

I thank Senators Costello and Ó Murchú for allowing me this time.

In recent times we have heard a lot about how we should view this problem because we have a history of emigration and know how we were looked after. I remind Senators that we are a nation of immigrants, whether Phoenicians, Celts, Normans, etc. It is only in the past 200 years that immigration has stopped in this country. As Senator Ó Murchú has said, we benefited from this diversity. We, as a nation, have improved ourselves. The culture and the economy of any country depend on that diversity and we benefit from it. Everyone is saying that we should keep the question of asylum seekers separate from the question of the need to attract new immigrants with the skills we are short of. Yes, but the cases are different. We must keep inside international and national laws. When approaching the refugee problem the very least we must do is apply both the national and international law. We must apply it diligently, promptly and with full regard for the humanitarian issues involved.

Having acknowledged the differences, there are also ways in which it is useful to consider the issues of refugees and economic migrants together. The crunch concept here is one of openness. How open are our minds? As Senator Ó Murchú has said, that is the reason this debate is useful. Are we to develop a fortress mentality by allowing a minimum number of people into Ireland in a grudging way or are we to display an open and welcoming mentality, the sort that is being talked about today?

I have one exception. I am not keen on the idea of screening economic migrants so that the people we let in fit precise job qualifications. Some of the Irish who arrived in America with practically no shirt on their backs got to the top. They did so because of the type of people they were rather than the qualifications they had. Therefore, I suggest that we should only demand that economic immigrants get a job. If they do not get a job within a certain period of time then they should leave and not go on the social welfare system. The social welfare system should not be available to them until they have been employed for a minimum length of time. I would also insist that economic immigrants, as opposed to refugees, are literate. Later on we will be talking about literacy.

The Minister proposes to set up a body to match the skills of potential immigrants with the skills we currently lack. I oppose his proposal for several reasons. First, it would be another instance of the State setting out to pick winners, which it has not proved itself to be good at doing in the past. Second, it dodges the real problem. If there is a specific lack of skills, then that is an educational issue and it is one we can solve. The only right place to solve this problem is in the education system. Directly importing specific skills is a short-term stop-gap method of solving a problem when we really need to think in the long term.

I am against the idea of attempting to neatly match skills with shortages because in the real world that is not how economic migration works. Neither does it reflect the needs of Ireland today. The reality is that most economic migrants come here not because they are head hunted for jobs at top prices but because they have an overwhelming need for a job. Many of them come because the jobs that are available are more attractive to them than to people who live here. They will either take jobs that other people do not want or they will work at a lower rate. Equally, the real problem facing many Irish companies is not a shortage of skills at the highest level but the difficulty of getting people to do a certain job at all or to do those jobs at a rate which makes the business viable. That is a difficult argument to put across because it is not understood. Some people are reluctant to acknowledge this truth because they think talking about it may create social conflict at a time when we are trying to hammer out a new partnership agreement. We must acknowledge it because businesses that cannot find people at a viable price are facing a dim future either because there will be no one to work or the business will price itself out of the market.

It may go against our liberal instincts to admit that we want economic migrants because we are looking for low priced workers but that is the reality. It is not easy to say that. If we do not face that reality then it will inevitably result in a major influx of illegal immigrants. That would be a sure guarantee that people will be exploited in the short term and that they will become a serious problem for our society in the long term. If we admit this reality then we can face up to the task of ensuring that those economic migrants are not exploited by employers or the system. They must be free to move upwards as far as their abilities will allow. As many Irish people know, the real strength of economic migrants is their wish to improve their lot and their readiness to work hard in order to do that. This has been proved by Irish emigrants. They must also be given the ability to achieve security of tenure. We should not be tempted to fool ourselves into thinking that we can turn the economic migrants out at some point down the road when there is a downturn in jobs. We must recognise that if we welcome them in now they are here to stay.

Immigration is an unfamiliar challenge for this generation but much of our wellbeing in the 21st century will depend on our getting it right. History shows that Irish people are extremely good at assimilating newcomers from wherever and however they come. We are good at using their strengths to forge a richer economic and cultural heritage. That is the road we should seek to follow but we should do it now with a generosity of spirit, not in a begrudging way. I welcome this opportunity in our generation. Let us grab hold of it and make these immigrants welcome for the long-term benefit of this nation.