Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Mar 2002

Vol. 169 No. 16

Immigration Bill, 2002: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate this important Bill in the Seanad. The Bill before the House is designed to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that when people arrive in the State, from places other than the common travel area with the United Kingdom, they have valid travel documents with them. The Bill also contains some amendments to the Refugee Act, 1996, the need for which emerges from the experience gained from operating the Act since I commenced it in full in November 2000. The Bill, in creating a statutory obligation on carriers to make sure that their passengers have proper documents, is one part of the strategy to deal with the problem of improperly documented arrivals. The other element is the process of ongoing contact and advice that is already in place between the Irish immigration authorities and carriers to assist them in fulfilling their obligations.

Ireland, in common with all other states throughout the world, operates immigration controls on persons arriving from abroad. These controls are there to protect and safeguard the interests of Irish society and of the individuals, regardless of whether they are citizens of Ireland, who make up that society. It is to the benefit of everyone that our immigration controls operate not only effectively, but also efficiently. The travelling public do not want to experience undue delay at immigration before being able to go about their business in the country. Carriers can do without the hassle of having to bring back their passengers who have been refused admission to the State because they do not meet immigration requirements. The interest of the immigration authorities themselves, in ensuring to the greatest extent possible that only those who are in compliance with the requirements of Irish law arrive in the State, is self-evident. It is for these reasons that states operate visa and other pre-clearance and carrier liability systems. That is why Ireland is now joining its fellow members of the European Union with the proposals in this Bill.

I wish to place the Bill in its context as part of the Government's approach to matters pertaining to migration and asylum matters. The Govern ment's period in office has seen changes in the migration environment of Ireland that are without precedent in the history of the State. There has always been some element of inward migration to this island; sadly, for much of our history as an independent nation, the pattern that has prevailed has been one of extensive net outward migration. That pattern established itself firmly in the famine years of the 19th century and was dictated largely by economic pressures. All that changed in the middle of the last decade. In my time in office, we have seen burgeoning expansion of inward migration to Ireland. Our economy has expanded and developed, due in no small measure to the policies adopted by the Government, as well as the sensible approach of the social partners in successive agreements affecting how we manage our economy.

Ireland has developed into an attractive place, one where people from abroad can see opportunities to share in and contribute to our economic growth – just as our predecessors through many generations saw opportunities during the last two centuries in far-flung, young and vibrant countries like Canada, the United States and Australia. Regular migration to Ireland in recent years has been at its highest level ever thanks to the enlightened approach the Government has taken to migration policy, which is recognised as one of the most liberal in Europe. According to figures from the Central Statistics Office, immigration to Ireland has been averaging almost 45,000 people a year over the past five years, with outward movements estimated at around 24,000 a year. This indicates an estimated average net inward migration of over 20,000 people a year.

Analysis of the figures demonstrates the upsurge in returning Irish migrants and people from within the European economic area who are coming to Ireland to make their living. Ireland's attractions as a place for people's future are recognised further afield as well. In 1999, my colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, issued a record 6,000 work permits to people from outside the European economic area, EEA. The following year that figure trebled and in 2002 doubled again to the phenomenal figure of 36,000 work permits – a total in the three most recent years of 60,000 work permit holders migrating to Ireland for economic reasons, observing our normal immigration requirements and being made welcome in their places of employment and their new communities.

Along with this increase in regular migration, we have experienced what many other developed countries of the Western world had already undergone in the previous decade or so, a growth in illegal migration and in the international business of facilitating those who, for one reason or another, feel that they cannot avail of the legal means of entering and settling in their chosen countries of destination. The international experience has been that a significant feature of this trend is the increase in the number of people seeking protection in destination countries on foot of claims of persecution in their home countries and Ireland has been no exception to that trend. This observation should not be interpreted as implying an assumption on my part that all asylum claims are motivated by reasons other than fear of persecution because the Irish asylum process is based on the principle that no assumptions are made about particular applications until they have been examined. It is simply a reflection of the experience internationally, an experience mirrored on the domestic scene.

Ireland has been a party to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees since 1956. However, when I took office I found only a rudimentary and under-resourced system for investigating and determining such claims. A recently enacted Refugee Act could not be implemented because it was not capable of catering for the volume of claims being received or of dealing with the growing backlog.

Let me remind Senators of the actions I have taken in the sphere of immigration and asylum since taking office. I put in place a new administrative arrangement, known colloquially as the Hope Hanlan procedure after the UNHCR representative with whom they were agreed, and secured new staff and new premises in order to establish the human rights of those who had claimed and were claiming asylum in Ireland.

I brought forward the legislation that became the Immigration Act, 1999, which had the vital effects of amending the Refugee Act, 1996 – necessary to make it work – and filling the lacuna left in the wake of the court decision on the constitutionality of certain aspects of immigration law. Not long after I took office, an essential element of this law was found to be incompatible with the Constitution. I organised the establishment and funding of the Refugee Legal Service, under the aegis of the Legal Aid Board, to assist claimants with their asylum claims.

I ensured the Garda Commissioner was able to establish the Garda national immigration bureau to cater for the demands placed on the Garda Síochána by the increase in regular migration to the State and the related, though lesser, growth in irregular migration. I put in place the logistical, statutory and administrative arrangements which were the essential precursors to the Refugee Act and the establishment of the two independent bodies under the Act whose job it is to investigate all asylum claims and recommend decisions to me.

I brought forward legislation to criminalise trafficking in human beings and streamline procedures for the judicial review of steps taken in the asylum and immigration processes, which constitute an expanding area of court business. In close co-operation with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, enhanced arrangements were put in place to ease the processing of work permits and related visas to allow economic migrants to enter the Irish workforce. I have facilitated a range of measures, in particular the "kNOw RACISM" campaign, to ensure the seeds of racism and xenophobia, which sadly exist to some extent in Irish society, do not flourish in order that all who come to our shores, for whatever reason, will be treated with dignity and fairness.

There is more. As well as bringing forward the current Bill, I have laid the groundwork for a root and branch restatement of immigration law. Senators will be aware of the public consultation process I conducted last year and now that all the expected responses are finally in, my Department is preparing a synopsis, which I expect to release soon.

The interdepartmental team on immigration matters, which I also established last year, has, among other matters, been monitoring a consultancy project in which the International Organisation for Migration is drawing together research on best migration practice in many jurisdictions worldwide. I expect to be publishing the team's work in the reasonably near future. This work, coupled with the internal review of immigration operations under way in my Department, is informing the development of a comprehensive new law on immigration and residence in Ireland, as well as the ongoing development of policy in this area. What I have in mind is for the new law to provide a modern legislative framework for the development and implementation of the policies needed to meet the evolving needs of society with procedures to cater for the rights and expectations of those who come into contact with the immigration process.

The Bill is a step towards that comprehensive measure and is needed now to deal with the scenario we face. In the year 2000 – the most recent year for which figures are available to me – a total of 5,852 persons were refused leave to land on arrival in the State. Of those, 2,735 – almost one in every two refusals – occurred because the person concerned did not have a proper passport. A further 1,397 were refused because, although they should have had visas, they did not. In other words, three quarters of those refused leave to land in the year 2000 were not in possession of proper travel documents. I have no reason to believe that the figures for 2001, when available, will portray a different picture. There is a clear need to address the issue and a ready means by which it has been successfully addressed in other jurisdictions. That means is the carrier liability system which the Bill contains provisions to establish in law.

I now turn to the provisions of the Bill. Section 2 is at the core of its carrier liability provisions, setting out the obligations that will be placed on a carrier whose vehicle brings persons to the State. A "carrier" is defined in section 1 as the owner of a vehicle or, in relation to a vehicle other than an aircraft, the person in charge of it. This definition encompasses ferry and other shipping companies and the captains of vessels. It includes airlines, but not the captains of aircraft, who are in a different legal position to the captains of seagoing craft. As well as these, the definition covers the owners and operators of road vehicles such as buses, coaches, cars and lorries.

Under subsection (1) of section 2, where a vehicle arrives in the State from outside Great Britain or Northern Ireland, the carrier is subject to a number of requirements. Under paragraph (a), the carrier must ensure everyone in the vehicle who wishes to land disembarks in compliance with any directions given by an immigration officer. Paragraph (b) requires that everyone on board who wishes to land is presented to an immigration officer while paragraph (c) requires that each non-national passenger who disembarks has the appropriate travel documents with him or her.

Every non-national should have a valid passport which must be current and relate to the bearer. For an EU national, the identity card issued to citizens by many member states meets this requirement. The nationals of certain non-EU countries require, in addition to a passport, a visa of one of two types – depending on their nationality and whether they want to visit the country or merely transit through a seaport or, more usually, an airport. The categories of non-nationals who do not require a visa to enter Ireland are currently set out in the Aliens (Visas) (No. 2) Order, 2001. Anyone not included in the categories there set out needs a visa. The order also lists the countries whose nationals must be in possession of a transit visa if they wish to make a journey which involves transiting through an Irish port, as distinct from entering the country.

The first two elements of subsection (1) give statutory weight to the normal co-operation with the immigration authorities that most carriers at present offer as a matter of routine business practice when disembarking their passengers. The last element, at paragraph (c) of the subsection, has the effect of requiring carriers to do in respect of journeys into Ireland what they already must with regard to journeys in the other direction. This will entail having in place systems to check the documents of passengers at embarkation. Carrier companies are no strangers to the business of checking travel documentation. All other EU member states, and most other countries to which carriers operate routes out of Ireland, already have in place legal arrangements of the type I am bringing forward in this section. When a person boards an aeroplane in Dublin bound for the Continent, or boards a vessel in Rosslare bound for France, his or her carrier company is already making the document checks at this end of the journey which are necessary to ensure both he or she and it comply with the immigration law of the destination country. The proposal before us means that those document checks will also be done as one boards for one's return journey to Ireland. Many carriers – both airlines and ferry companies – already routinely conduct pre-boarding document checks on all passengers, even where there is no immi gration requirement to do so. They consider it necessary for their own security reasons and in the interests of the safety of their passengers, particularly in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 11 September in the USA.

In the discussions my officials have had and continue to have with various groups of carriers in the course of preparing the Bill and waiting for its provisions to come into effect there has been a general recognition that carrier liability provisions are now the norm internationally. There is also a general welcome from carrier interests for the assurances of continuing co-operation between my Department's staff and the Garda national immigration bureau in helping them to meet their obligations under this proposal. They are particularly welcome regarding their obligations in terms of passenger documentation. None of these obligations is likely to prove unduly onerous to the bona fide carrier. I want the business of meeting these obligations to work smoothly and effectively.

Senators will note that the provisions of subsection (1) apply only to arrivals from outside the common travel area operating between Ireland and the United Kingdom. A significant part of the CTA arrangements is that citizens of the two states can travel freely between the two jurisdictions without any passport requirement. We do not operate systematic immigration checks on arrivals from the United Kingdom and, in the circumstances, it would scarcely be reasonable for the law to put carriers in the position of having to carry out checks on their passengers which go far beyond what the Irish immigration authorities themselves do. Accordingly, the obligations in subsection (1) apply only to non-CTA arrivals.

Section 2(3), by contrast, sets out an obligation which applies to all arrivals, including from the CTA. It enables an immigration officer to request the carrier in such a case to produce a list of the names and nationality of the persons carried and details of crew members. This is a useful control measure, based on a current provision in the Aliens Order, 1946, and will enable immigration officers, where they consider it necessary, to gather important information about clandestine entry into the State from whatever source.

Section 2(5) and (6) provide specific defences to charges of failing to meet obligations under the section. The first of these, available in relation to any of the offences, protects a carrier from conviction where it can be shown that all such steps as were reasonably open were taken to ensure compliance with the obligations. Thus, a carrier who has proper procedures in place at the point of embarkation for the checking of documents and can show that those procedures were operated properly in the particular case, would be able to invoke this defence. The defences provided for in subsection (6) apply where the offence is under subsection (1)(c), that is, where a non-national passenger did not have proper documentation, and arise where the carrier can show either that the non-national concerned had the relevant documentation at the point of embarkation, subsection (6)(a) or, at paragraph (b), that the carrier did not know and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that the document was invalid – for example, if the falsification technique used in the document in question was not a particularly easy one to spot.

The provision of these defences ensures balance in the operation of these proposals when enacted. They are based on our experience and the experiences of other member states of the reality of document fraud. Typical instances include the disposal of genuine documents during the journey after they have been used to get the passenger on board. We are aware of instances where the same documents will be used over and over again to secure boarding for different passengers, presumably having been retrieved by the smuggler providing the service to the passengers in question. We are also aware that some high quality forgeries and falsification methods, including photo substitutions, are in use which might only be detected by an expert, often only after recourse to sophisticated equipment. Carriers are not expected to operate document checks to an unreasonably high level of sophistication and are not expected to give absolute guarantees as to the possession by their passengers of proper documentation on arrival in the State.

Section 2(8) is an important provision covering the drawing up and publication of guidelines for carriers to ensure compliance with their obligations under the Bill. In anticipation of the measures in the Bill, my officials, together with officials from the Department of Public Enterprise and representatives of the Garda national immigration bureau, met with the Irish Road Haulage Association in a series of negotiations which resulted in what both I and the haulage association believe to be an effective set of guidelines for its members, addressing the question of clandestine passengers on board their vehicles. We both recognise the vulnerability of international hauliers as targets for smugglers who have no scruples about how they transport their often unfortunate human cargo.

The guidelines, which have been adopted already by the association, are aimed at providing a checklist for long distance lorry operators so that they can minimise the scope of their vehicles being used for this clandestine trade. Observance by a haulier of these guidelines will have two effects. In practical terms it will help to protect them and their cargo from the activities of human smugglers and, as far as this new law is concerned, it will go towards assisting them in dealing with any prosecution that might arise in the event that covert passengers succeed in boarding their vehicles unknown to them, on the basis of the "all reasonable steps" defence in subsection (5). I commend the mature approach of the Irish Road Haulage Association to this matter and I see this type of consultation with particular interests involved in international carriage as a model for further such guidelines with other sectors.

We have deliberately kept the guidelines provision in section 2(8) separate from the standard regulation making power in section 6 of the Bill. This is because guidelines of their nature must have a reasonable element of flexibility, a flexibility which might not be available if the style of language and rules of statutory interpretation necessarily associated with regulations, which are statutory instruments, were to be employed in drawing up guidelines under section 2(8).

Failure to meet any of the obligations set out in section 2 is an offence, punishable on summary conviction by a fine of €3,000. However, section 3 provides a means, similar to the system at present in relation to parking offences, where the carrier can avoid court proceedings by payment of a fixed penalty, in this case €1,500, within 28 days of receiving the notice of intention to prosecute. Section 4 is a standard provision regarding the responsibility of officers of a body corporate for offences committed by the body.

I turn now to the amendments to the Refugee Act, 1996, which are provided for in section 5 of the Bill. These amendments arise out of the ongoing review of the operation of that Act. That continuous process involves my Department and the two independent bodies set up under the Act, the office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, co-operating to ensure that the procedures under the Act achieve in an efficient way my policy aim and that of Government in relation to asylum. That policy is to ensure that anyone arriving in the State who is genuinely in need of the protection of the State is identified as such as soon as possible after they arrive so that they can immediately start the process of integration into Irish society and take up the rights to which they are entitled under the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees. The necessary corollary to that policy is to safeguard the internationally recognised concept of refugee status and of our domestic asylum systems and protect them against abuse.

The proposals at present in section 5 of the Bill relate to two aspects of the Refugee Act: the role of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the question of protecting the identity of asylum seekers. I propose, in paragraph (a) of the Bill, to ensure that the important role of the tribunal is acknowledged by giving the chairperson of the tribunal an ex officio place on the refugee advisory board. The board, which is envisaged by section 7A of the Act, a provision inserted at my initiative as part of the amendments of 1999, is designed to draw together the various interests in the business of catering to the needs of asylum seekers and of refugees so as to monitor the operation of the Act and of other aspects of the lives of asylum seekers in the State.

The Refugee Applications Commissioner's role in relation to the board is already specified in the legislation. Her function as an ex officio member is to act as secretary to the board. It makes sense, also, to have the chairperson of the other key independent body involved in the asylum process as an ex officio member. One of the functions of the proposed board, as set out in section 7A, is the preparation of a report every two years on the operation of the Act in the previous two years, with the first report to be in 2001. Since the Act itself did not commence in full until 20 November of that year, it would not have been possible to meet that statutory requirement, so paragraph (a)(i) of the Bill proposes to move the date for that requirement to 2003. I expect to announce the full membership of the board in the near future, once the provisions before us become law.

Another matter related to the operation of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, which is not covered in the Refugee Act at present, is the preparation and submission of an annual report. That matter is addressed by section 5(c) of the Bill. I take this opportunity to commend both the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the chair of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and their staffs for their excellent work in dealing with asylum cases as part of my overall asylum strategy. Following the investment of significant additional resources by the Government in the asylum process, I am pleased to inform the House that, since July last year, scheduling and processing of asylum applications has significantly exceeded monthly intake and, by June 2002, I expect the commissioner's office will, in the main, be dealing with applications which were made in 2002.

The Bill also proposes, in section 5(b), to amend section 19 of the Refugee Act to remove the requirement of the Minister's consent where an asylum seeker himself or herself consents to be identified as such in the media. This change has been pressed for by many media interests, including some who have represented the current situation as being a ministerial veto on any coverage of asylum matters. It is nothing of the sort, but I am satisfied that the protection of the privacy of individual asylum seekers is sufficiently achieved without the additional requirement of ministerial consent, which only serves to create an administrative burden without a corresponding benefit in any significant additional protection of the individual applicant's interests. The advance consent of individual asylum seekers will continue to be required and journalists should be ever vigilant to ensure that irresponsible disclosure of asylum seekers' identities, even with their consent, will not jeopardise the lives of the applicant or of any family or other connections in the country of origin.

Senators may note that I referred a moment ago to proposals which are "at present" in section 5. That is because I am considering bringing forward, by way of Committee Stage amendments to the Bill and subject to Government approval, further amendments to the Refugee Act, 1996, and also to the Immigration Act, 1999. I already referred to the ongoing review of operations in these areas with a view to ensuring optimum efficiency in the delivery of services to non-nationals. I expect the matters to be covered by Committee Stage amendments will include a more efficient way of dealing with asylum applications that have been, in effect, abandoned by the applicant and will elaborate further on the role and functions of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. It is also likely that some technical issues to do with general immigration law will be addressed by Committee Stage amendment.

I and the Government remain committed to honouring our humanitarian obligations under the range of international instruments to which Ireland is a party, including in the particular context of this Bill the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees and its related New York protocol of 1967. We also remain committed to the development, consistent with those international obligations, of an effective immigration framework which serves the interests of Irish society and of all who are part of that society. I commend the Bill to the House.

I welcome the Minister to the House, even if I cannot accord the same welcome to the Bill. I am sure on this bright sunny day the Minister would much rather be elsewhere, as I would myself, anywhere within sight of Killarney, Kenmare, Caherciveen, Killorglin or Dingle, but here we are. On a recent occasion when I was enjoying a function down there, I noted that the Minister was stuck in the other House with some Bill.

I must apologise to the Minister and to the House. I have been thrown in at the deep end here. I am substituting for Senator Taylor-Quinn who is unable to be here today. It is not my area.

I have listened with great interest to all the Minister has said and I will come back to specific points in his speech in a few minutes. As he will be aware, Amnesty International has huge concerns at the grave human rights implications, particularly in section 2(1)(c) of this Bill, which obliges carriers to ensure “that each non-national on board the vehicle seeking to land in the State or to pass through a port in the State in order to travel to another state has with him or her a valid passport or other equivalent document which establishes his or her identity and nationality and, if required by law, a valid Irish transit visa or a valid Irish visa”. Contravention of this provision would constitute an offence carrying a penalty of €3,000 per inadequately documented passenger.

I should have said at the outset that this Bill has two purposes, as the Minister has outlined in the explanatory memorandum. The first of which is the one I have been referring to. First it places on carriers bringing persons to the State obligations regarding the compliance of their passengers with immigration requirements on arrival. Contravention of those requirements will constitute an offence punishable by a fine – with the possibility of avoiding prosecution by payment of an on-the-spot penalty. The Bill also makes cer tain amendments to the Refugee Act, 1996. It would be far preferable if there could be an obligation on carriers that they would not carry any passengers at all. In any event, this is a little rough if, unknown to them, they find they have such a person on board.

Amnesty International has pointed out:

To penalise carriers this way evades our duty to provide asylum from persecution, contrary to international human rights law. It will force untrained airline and ferry staff into the role of immigration officials; to decide which passengers' documents to scrutinise, and who may and who may not travel to safety in Ireland. Some of those turned away may face torture or worse.

This is an important point. There were instances of summary execution in places. I am not saying the people involved were turned away from here. I do not have the facts to hand but this has happened in some countries. That seems extremely harsh.

Amnesty International further points out:

Carriers will have to weigh the human rights implications of turning a passenger away against the severe financial penalties resulting from a breach of this legislation. Thus the protection of human rights will be devolved to commercial entities, which by their very nature are profit-driven and owe a responsibility to their shareholders in this regard.

UNHCR has repeatedly stated that such carrier sanctions conflict with the letter and spirit of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.

In addition to the six Irish organisations that joined with Amnesty International to release a joint statement in December last, a number of others, such as Concern, the Human Rights Commission and the Children's Rights Alliance, are equally opposed to carriers' liability legislation.

Amnesty and other organisations very much oppose this measure. I have here a statement to which Amnesty International, Comhlámh, the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, the Irish Refugee Council, and the Refugee Protection Policy Group subscribe. It states:

The Irish Government will shirk its moral and legal responsibility to afford protection to refugees if it introduces its planned carriers' liability legislation, which will impose heavy fines on airlines and ferry companies that transport people not in possession of proper documentation into Ireland.

International standards of refugee protection recognise that people fleeing human rights violations are rarely in a position to obtain the proper documentation. Sometimes the need for flight is so urgent that to do so through normal channels is impossible. In other cases, the functions of their States of origin have broken down through armed conflict and obtaining docu ments is out of the question. Many asylum seekers, denied regular means of transport as a consequence of this legislation, will be driven to resort to other dangerous means of travel. The inevitable result of this sort of restrictive measure is to force asylum seekers into the hands of smugglers and into the back of freight containers. Some will consequently pay the ultimate price for their passage. This we witnessed on December 8th in Wexford where eight asylum seekers were discovered to have lost their lives in horrifying circumstances inside an airtight shipping container.

While we acknowledge that States have a right to control their borders, measures which directly or indirectly obstruct the entry of asylum seekers into their territory are incompatible with international law and in particular with the 1951 UN Refugee Convention.

They state that under this legislation "airline and ferry staff would have to decide who is allowed to enter Ireland – decisions that could literally be a matter of life or death – and will be forced to adopt the role of the Irish immigration authorities". They further state:

People fleeing torture or death have the right to have their asylum claims determined by the appropriate Government bodies, not the employees of carriers who are ill-equipped and untrained for this task. Otherwise, access to the whole asylum apparatus of the State (including the right to an appeal, right to legal assistance, right to interpretation, etc.) established under the Refugee Act, 1996 is removed. This will take place without any mechanism for transparency or accountability or means of appeal in relation to decisions made to refuse people entry to apply for asylum in Ireland.

The Government should instead concentrate on processing asylum claims efficiently. A State's asylum obligations must not be reduced to a numbers game. The object of our asylum policy should always be the fulfilment of our international obligations towards asylum seekers and refugees. This is not served by striving to reduce the numbers of those who manage to seek our protection.

Forcing airlines, ferries and other carrier companies to take on the responsibility of the Government in immigration control, a role for which they are not equipped, cannot be a safe practice. These companies will have to weigh the human rights implications of turning a passenger away against the severe financial penalties resulting from a breach of this legislation. Thus the protection of human rights will be devolved to commercial entities, which by their very nature are profit-driven and owe a responsibility to their shareholders in this regard – a highly unsatisfactory situation for all concerned.

Carriers' liability laws have been put in place throughout the EU, but Ireland does not have to follow suit. An EU Council directive harmonising this sort of legislation recently came into force. Fortunately, Ireland is not bound by this directive, not having signed the 1990 Schengen Convention abolishing border controls. As there is no EU imperative for adopting such restrictive legislation in Ireland, it cannot be excused on this ground.

This document of December 2001 states:

In conclusion, this legislation will almost certainly result in the obstruction of access to persons at risk of serious human rights abuses to the protection of the Irish State. When Ireland signed and ratified the 1951 Refugee Convention, we undertook to determine the refugee status of anyone wishing to apply for asylum on our territory. By forcing the employees of companies to decide who may and who may not enter its territory, Ireland would be effectively delegating this responsibility to the carrier. If carrier sanctions are put in place, carriers and their staff will be placed in the position of doing the government's job without being equipped to do so. As a result, many men, women and children at risk of serious harm will be prevented from gaining the protection of the State, contrary to our international obligations.

The Minister made many important points that conflict with the above statement. He mentioned the enlightened approach the Government has taken to migration policy and claimed that our policy is recognised "as one of the most liberal in Europe." If section 2(1)(c), to which Amnesty International and other bodies are objecting, is implemented, this will not be the case. The Minister also stated: “I have facilitated a range of measures, in particular the “kNOw RACISM” campaign, to ensure the seeds of racism and xenophobia, which sadly exist to some extent in Irish society, do not flourish in order that all who come to our shores for whatever reason will be treated with dignity and fairness.” Again, I respectfully suggest section 2(1)(c) very much conflicts with this claim.

The Minister spoke of a comprehensive new law on immigration and residence in Ireland, something we very much welcome. He also spoke of meeting the evolving needs of Irish society, but, as he said, the Bill is not yet ready. It is merely in preparation and will inform our further policy. Given that this is the case, the Bill might be premature.

The Minister said he was considering bringing forward amendments to this Bill on Committee Stage and referred to the ongoing review of operations in these areas with a view to ensuring optimum efficiency and delivery of services to non-nationals. He claimed the Government remains committed to honouring our humanitarian obligations under the range of international instruments to which Ireland is a party. Again, I respectfully suggest that some of the measures in the Bill, particularly the point to which Amnesty International and other bodies are objecting, represent a strange way of showing this commitment.

I appeal to the Minister to wait. We are in the dying days of this Parliament and there is no order for Committee Stage in the House. It does not look like it will be reached. It is not ordered for tomorrow. As I do not know when we will be sitting after that, I cannot see the Bill being taken in the other House. Therefore, I do not see the reason it cannot be left in abeyance and receive due consideration. I respect very much that the Minister has alluded to some very important matters, which he is addressing and intends to bring forward.

I will deal quickly with some other points. It would be far preferable if we could ensure carriers do not have any passengers rather than placing people at the risk we seem to be placing them at by way of the introduction of section 2.

Where is the Bill going? It seems to be going nowhere. I am advised that there was a lack of transparency in signing up to some parts of the Schengen agreement to which we have not signed up fully.

I think we have.

Not fully, I understand.

We have signed up to essential parts of it, but not fully.

We could be in contravention of the 1951 UN convention. The Minister stated this is a very important Bill, but without addressing some of the matters to which he referred, it is not as important as it should be. It would be much more thorough if we could wait until those matters were addressed. I respect that we need to deal very much with residency law and all the other matters to which the Minister referred. Rather than rushing the Bill through Second Stage without any further plans to take any other Stage in the House, it should be left in abeyance for another while pending the Minister's ongoing review of all these other matters.

I very much welcome the Bill which is both very important and humane. We have to know who is coming in and going out of the country, particularly who is coming in. With regard to illegal human trafficking, we know the dangerous position into which so many people in poor circumstances are put by criminals who are charging them a lot of money to transport them into the country by hook or by crook. Trafficking leaves a lot of deaths and misery in its wake.

We must have a Bill like this because it is important that everyone coming into the country is properly documented, has proper visas and we know who they are. Anyone coming in could blow up a ferry – we have seen what happened in America. We must have stringent controls in the times in which we live. We cannot have an open door policy. My colleague, Senator Coghlan, quoted people who want such a policy and to let everybody in regardless. We cannot have that; it cannot be done. All carriers should be held accountable to ensure they know who is on their plane, boat, truck or other means of transport.

It is also important that we have electronic surveillance equipment in order that it will be known if people are hiding in the boots of cars or trucks or containers when boarding various types of transport. They should be checked out in order that we know who they are. This is important for their own safety, because the criminals smuggling them in do not give a curse about their lives. The criminals get their money and do not care whether they smuggle people into the country dead or alive. They are hard hearted individuals looking for big money who pressurise people in poor countries.

Criminals are bringing people into the country for many reasons. Some are bringing them in for prostitution, promising them great jobs, work and big business. Such people end up in misery. If they had proper documentation, they would not end up in misery because immigration officials would know exactly who they are. We must have a proper system of documentation and the onus must be on the carrier to enforce it. Who else can do it?

If one is travelling to any country in the world, even if one is a parliamentarian, one has to have a visa and the correct documentation. It is even impossible to get into some countries from which asylum seekers are coming with perfect documentation because the countries concerned do not want to let people in. They are not democracies but dictatorships in which people are suffering. We must ensure all genuine asylum seekers who enter this country are treated fairly and justly.

Many would say we give better care to asylum seekers than to the poor of our own country, but we certainly treat them as well as possible. I always make sure that I give people from strange countries a salute and let them know they are welcome. It is important to do so and I condemn those who unfairly make critical remarks about them. However, the law has to be upheld. We have to ensure we know who is entering the country and that they are documented.

Truck drivers should be equipped with electronic equipment to ensure their vehicles are not harbouring illegal immigrants. Many people are entering the country by first taking the boat and then climbing into trucks. It is important that they are documented before they get onto the boat. It is a difficult task because people are prepared to spend money to bring individuals into the country by hook or by crook. This is good legislation and it is important for the safety of passengers, whether on a plane or a boat. They will know that their fellow passengers have proper documentation and are not carrying any weapons or equipment that could endanger lives.

I welcome the Bill, into which the Minister has put much thought and work. He made it very clear that the Bill is not in any way an anti-asylum seeker measure, but will help asylum seekers.

It will. It will ensure that people have proper documentation so they will not be hassled when they arrive here or possibly be sent back. They will now arrive with the proper documentation, thus enabling a smoother and more efficient processing of asylum applications. This will mean less hardship for people entering the country.

The Bill is very important from a safety point of view and from the perspective of refugees and immigrants. Every country in the world has such provisions and we must have them also. Thankfully, under the Government, we have a prosperous country to which many people want to come and we are delighted that the Government is sanctioning permits so that many people can come here to work. We want people entering the country because many job vacancies exist. I never thought I would see the day when Ireland would import workers. I saw us export workers for many years. As a young man I often spent an evening in Dún Laoghaire, watching the emigrant ships coming in and going out. Those coming home were always singing and in good spirits, while those leaving were tearful and downhearted and wondered why Ireland was not doing something to get them jobs.

We are delighted to be able to give jobs to people and to give them a better standard of living than they can obtain in their own countries. However, we must ensure that those entering the country are officially recorded and documented. I congratulate the Minister and his staff on an excellent Bill.

Senator Farrell is a lovely person and one of the loveliest things about him is his innocence. He seems to have swallowed this Bill in its entirety, but I hope to demonstrate how wrong he is. The Bill will damage the rights of asylum seekers; that is the sole reason it was introduced. It is intended to exclude people and it has no interest in the human rights of asylum seekers or refugees under various international treaties. It is designed purely to keep the numbers down. The Minister is an honest man and I am sure he will accept that there is political pressure to keep the numbers down.

Did this Bill originate in France? Amnesty International issued a statement in November 2000 noting the initiative of the French Republic seeking a directive aimed at the harmonisation of carrier sanctions in EU member states. Let us think about the French. I wonder if the Minister has been reading Lara Marlowe's excellent series of articles in The Irish Times in recent weeks detailing the activities of the French in Algeria. They introduced the most barbarous forms of torture, judicial murder, ex-judicial murder and illegal detention. That country is the source of this wish to create an even more fortified Europe.

Senator Coghlan referred to the fact that we may have escaped certain provisions of the Schengen agreement. He was relying on briefing materials issued by Amnesty International, but the situation has changed since then. The Government formally approved an EU Council of Ministers decision providing for Ireland's accession to certain parts of the Schengen acquis, including the obligation to introduce carrier liability. I am sure the Minister will confirm this.

Article 26 of the Schengen acquis has been implemented.

In other words, I am right. In the Amnesty International statement, it was noted that there is no EU imperative to introduce this legislation, but that is no longer the case. It is now the position that if we do not implement the EU directive, we will eventually be brought before the European Court of Justice by the Commission. That would be splendid. Let us go down that road and be taken to the European Court of Justice because I have no doubt the Bill would be found to be an illegal instrument. The directive's obligations are in breach of international human rights as recognised by the European Court of Justice and there is every chance the court would agree with this view.

I know Senator Farrell made his observations with real goodness of heart that the Bill will favour refugees. Let us hear it from the horse's mouth. This will impose an obligation on airlines, boats, other carriers and their personnel to act as immigration officers. One of the things we have said repeatedly is that there must be sensitivity in this area, with properly trained personnel. We have not trained our personnel properly yet, or at least not in sufficient numbers, and now we are getting airline crews to do it. It is a compete and utter nonsense.

British Airways, which is not my favourite airline, has said that such measures have an impact on refugees. This is evidenced by the comments of British Airways to the European Council in October 2000 when it voiced its concerns regarding the UK legislation, which is similar. It said that since carrier liability was introduced no less than 400 passengers on its flights who arrived in the UK without valid travel documents were granted refugee status. If BA had observed the strict letter of the law, these 400 would have been denied the international protection they deserve. That is what British Airways said. That is the effect of this law, which is why I intend to vote against it. It is rotten law that violates people's human rights and it is a disgrace to the House.

Another piece of research was conducted by the European Commission – it is condemning its own legislation. This interim research project, which was carried out by the Commission, found, among other things, that "many asylum seekers. are seeking asylum via trafficking routes as a result of restrictive border control measures". Research for the UNHCR has also shown that the vast majority of asylum seekers now enter Europe in an irregular fashion and more than likely with the assistance of traffickers and smugglers. The main nationalities trafficked and smuggled are those who go on to gain refugee status. That is the situation. I have placed on the record of this House evidence, first, from a commercial airline and, second, from the European Commission. Both highlight precisely the dangers involved in these kinds of measures being incorporated into legislation in terms of a serious violation of people's human rights.

It is only a week since I was in Buswell's Hotel and met a young Turkish man, several of whose family perished in the containers into which the Minister and his laws will drive further tragic families. This will be followed by another public outcry, but it can be avoided in the first place by not passing this law. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

The usual excuse for the introduction of this kind of law is to control irregular migration, but the solution to this problem does not lie in the potentially harmful practice of denying people access to a state's territory. This simply drives the most desperate people into the clutches of traffickers or smugglers. The denial of access has been shown not to prevent entry, but rather to drive people into another channel. I do not believe this is what we should be attempting to do.

On 16 July last year, the head of the liaison office of UNHCR in Dublin said she was opposed to the planned introduction of this kind of law in Ireland. She stated that, where such a measure obliges carrier staff to check the authenticity of documentation, this "delegates an authority which squarely lies with states. and the end result is that people who need access to may effectively be barred." When I made the same point in a more vague manner a little while ago, I saw that the Minister was shaking his head.

This sort of restriction undermines the carefully constructed international system for the protection of refugees and circumvents the object and purpose of international treaties dealing with the protection of refugees, including the 1951 Refugee Convention. Such legislation prevents the effective enjoyment of the right to seek and enjoy asylum granted by Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The result of this legislation may well be that those who cannot flee oppression are left at risk of serious harm. Even those who have the means of escape find themselves placed in the hands of unscrupulous traffickers.

It should be noted that this type of legislation has met with difficulties in other European countries. I refer to the situation in Austria, where in October 2001 the Austrian constitutional court upheld complaints from three carrier companies against the same kind of legislation as that which the Minister is seeking to uphold. The Austrian constitutional court said that this legislation is wrong. It argued that the provisions did not state how, in fulfilling the provision, the carrier staff would take into consideration the state's commitments under the Geneva Convention. I want to hear the Minister answer that question. Like the Austrian legislation, the proposed Irish Bill does not refer to the State's obligations under the Geneva Convention.

This legislation is being brought in to comply with the 1990 Schengen Agreement, which Ireland has recently signed. However, Article 26 of the agreement clearly stipulates that its implementation is subject to obligations arising from the 1951 Geneva Convention. How will the Minister square all of these contradictions? An Austrian court has found that such legislation is unconstitutional because it violates these conventions; Amnesty International and many other organisations here have made the same point; the UNHCR rejects this type of legislation. It is quite clear that everybody does. We have the opportunity to do something glorious – to stand up for the oppressed. We should let them take us to court, which is what I would like to see happening, and see whether we can justify a position which would be more in favour of refugees.

I put it to the Minister that this legislation is mean-minded, as is this whole exercise. He is playing a numbers game intended at exclusion. The Minister wishes to keep the greatest number of people possible out of Ireland. He is asking airline staff to act as immigration officers. I wonder if he remembers the case of an unfortunate Congolese woman who became hysterical while being placed on a plane in Brussels. Airline staff, who had been unofficially put into a similar situation to that proposed by the Minister, sat on the woman and smothered her to death. This is the path down which the Minister is driving us.

It is absolutely unconscionable and this Bill must be voted down. I strongly oppose the Bill.

This will probably be the Minister's last visit to this House in this session. He has come to this House on many occasions over the past five years and he has been a hard working, progressive and innovative Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. This fact may not be publicly acknowledged, but it ought to be. He has introduced more reforming laws during his tenure than many of his predecessors. That is a fact.

We hope there is a ‘but'.

The very last thing this country needs is to become over-emotional about the issue of asylum seekers and refugees. In my con stituency of Cork North-Central, we have had a sad and sordid example of a politician who—

Hear, hear.

I have not finished what I have to say yet. We have a politician who, for naked electoral reasons, decided to jump on the bandwagon. In so doing, he generated and fanned a flame of racism at a very delicate time in Cork. Such behaviour is wrong. That anybody involved in politics should allow such a thing to happen is a sad indictment of each of us. I do not want the presentation of this Bill to be used as an opportunity to add to an element of racism that currently prevails in Ireland.

I have mixed feelings about this Bill. If the outcome of it is to reduce or eliminate sordid human trafficking, such as happened in Wexford recently and happens in other countries more frequently, the Bill must be supported. Those of us who are truly concerned about human rights must seek to eliminate this exploitation of human misery and hardship. We should have the courage to do so in our laws. We are all aware of the level of international terrorism, drug trafficking and trading in human misery in the world today. We must narrow the range of possibilities that allow such trafficking to flourish and seek to eliminate it. We are obliged to do so.

I have grave reservations regarding the potential impact of this legislation on people who are fleeing from active persecution. Such people are unlikely to have their documentation in order when they enter any country. How are we to reconcile all that is good in this legislation with the potential harm that it could cause? It is correct to seek to eliminate illegal trafficking and give a measure of protection to drivers of carriers, particularly container type carriers, who find themselves in a dreadful situation with people being smuggled onto their vehicles at the last moment. They need the protection of the law, including all the help we can give them to play their part in ensuring this type of trafficking does not happen. This is the good aspect of the Bill, which I fully support, having included my proviso.

The Minister has worked hard to put in place a system to deal with an influx of asylum seekers for which this country was neither administratively, psychologically nor historically prepared. Ours was a country where the traffic was in the opposite direction and we had no experience of dealing with this type situation. The Minister had to confront this issue as humanely and speedily as possible.

On the number of asylum seekers currently in the country, which is not very big, the Minister has put in place a huge number of additional staff to process applications. Nevertheless, in deference to those already here, we must seek to extend the numbers of staff to deal more speedily with applications. This is crucially important if we are to be seen to respond in a humane fashion. Those who can stay in the country should be allowed to take up employment as soon as possible. It is the only way refugees or asylum seekers will integrate in Irish society. We all know from experience that it is with the people with whom we work we begin to integrate. There can be no integration until people are allowed to work. Therefore, I ask the Minister to make an additional effort to speed up the process in order that we can enable asylum seekers currently in the country to take up employment and give them that dignity.

Great efforts have been made in some areas to assist refugees and asylum seekers. The VEC in Cork city holds special language and socialisation classes and so on which have been offered to asylum seekers. There is a very good uptake. This is making a difference and helping to break down the horrible prejudice. While asylum seekers have their own special classes, they also attend classes with others with similar needs.

I pay tribute to teachers in schools throughout the country who were not prepared for this phenomenon. When I visit schools I now see a range of different nationalities. It is a great time to get young people because they mix and mingle with Irish people and form a neighbourly relationship, which is good. I pay tribute to the schools for the work they have done in this regard.

I have little more to say on the issue except that I have no doubt the issues and fears I have expressed will be examined in greater detail on Committee Stage. However, I recognise the nakedness of an island country like this which does not have a law in place in line with the countries surrounding it. There are those who, from an idealistic point of view, would argue for a total open door policy. I would prefer if we had a policy which would, not just allow people to be admitted, but would have proper education, health and housing provisions in place. This would enable Ireland, not just to be a place where people are welcome at the borders, but where refugees and asylum seekers' human needs are properly looked after and where there is parity of provision between asylum seekers, refugees and our own people. That is the ideal which we can achieve if we seek to properly regulate the matter.

I ask the Minister to look again at this issue. I do not know how it can be done, but he has expertise which I do not have. At the end of the day those most in need and fleeing from the most active of persecutors should not be the first victims of this law.

Lest the House thinks there is any conflict between Senator Quill and me in regard to our exchanges, I was merely trying to intervene to agree and congratulate her. She spoke about utterances made by certain people in her constituency, which is very regrettable. I am pleased she raised these issues. There is a sad irony in this for her and perhaps politics in Ireland because she lost her seat in the constituency during the last general election.

To the gentleman concerned.

That is the very point I wanted to make. It certainly does not mark progress. It is a rather ironic outcome, given Senator Quill's courageous stance in the constituency, where obviously, if one is to believe public opinion polls, there is a gallery to which one can play on the subject.

This is further legislation which reinforces our participation in the fortress Europe policy being adopted by every EU member state and which certainly goes against the spirit of good human rights practice and the tide in the world today. All human history is about the migration and the movement of people which is the reason there is diversity all over the globe. Because of major political upheaval in eastern and central Europe ten years ago, including total adjustment from one economic system to another, there is a movement of people from south eastern Europe to this country and other countries in western Europe. This is accompanied by a large movement of people from the continent of Africa, in particular, the poorest continent on the globe, which in real terms is poorer today than it was ten years ago because of corruption and failure of the economy in any of its major countries.

As part of this human family, we all have an obligation to look after our fellow human beings. As one of the smallest countries in Europe, we are per capita the recipient of the least number of migrating people as part of this migration phenomenon, yet we are the first to jump in line with the policies of the countries which wish to operate a fortress Europe policy, which is shameful. Countries such as Hungary have accommodated 80,000 people from the former Yugoslavia. They are not necessarily ethnic Hungarians from Vojvodina – some are, but many are Roma people or Serbs. The Ukraine, which is supposed to be chaotic and did not make the transition, has accommodated approximately 250,000 Tartars, formerly Crimean Tartars deported by Stalin to Tajikistan. They have now returned to the Crimean region of the Ukraine. Despite its difficulties, the shambolic state of its economy and its politics generally, the Ukrainian Government has welcomed them. Many have been returned to lands they formerly owned. Would we do so in this country given the current climate of which we are part? We would not.

It is quite wrong to devolve responsibility for illegal immigration into this country. This carrier legislation is something that is in the process of enactment in every parliament in the member states of the EU and we are enthusiastically following suit. Placing the responsibility on the carriers for policing ports against illegal immigrants, asylum seekers or refugees is wrong because there is only one possible reaction. They will fear the sanctions of the law and they will deploy all kinds of methods to ensure that people do not board their ships, planes or vehicles. No doubt they will often act outside the law, which will look the other way because they are doing the dirty work for governments and the legal systems of the various countries.

We should be no part of this kind of legislation but should give the lead in Europe at Council of Europe level. There should be a proper pan-European approach to the migration of people. That approach should be generous in outlook and should learn from history. In bad economic times Ireland sent millions of its own sons and daughters to the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom. We hoped they would find an amenable situation on arrival in those countries and would be the first to protest if they did not.

I have had personal experience through work with the Council of Europe of going to almost all the countries of former Yugoslavia and visiting refugee camps and camps for internally displaced people. Their situation was awful. Their human rights and dignity were taken from them and they lived in wretched conditions. If it were not for the work of people such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees their lives would be appalling. The response of member states of the EU to this phenomenon is hostile and I find that obnoxious and objectionable.

Our record and history, from the 1920s to the 1960s, show that we sent hundreds of thousands of economic refugees to culturally friendly countries like the United States. Once they left our shores we never thought of what might become of them. Despite the historical hostility that existed to some extent in the United Kingdom we were lucky there was never much hostility towards Irish people. We learnt nothing from history.

I have been a critic of much of the legislation this Minister has introduced and when I was spokesperson here on justice we had many clashes. I have not spoken on a justice issue for 18 months but I feel compelled to speak today and object to what I see happening. Why do we not look at the example of a country like Hungary and what it can do for people coming from a neighbouring country? A country that has had difficulty making the change from a communist socialist controlled economy to a market economy found the generosity to accommodate 80,000 people. Poland has also done a lot for people from Moldova and accepted thousands of people for shelter and protection until they returned home or were given refugee or asylum status.

Our policy seems to be to stop everybody from coming into the country. That is the message going out. The Minister will disagree but the message he is sending is that we are an unfriendly country and that the people coming here are "false tourists" and we should get rid of them.

It is inappropriate that we should enact this legislation. We should instead give the lead in seeking a pan-European solution through which governments, acting together, would decide to tackle this phenomenon of our age – hundreds of thousands of people fleeing their country because their countries' economies have failed them. It is disappointing that given our history we are following enthusiastically this fortress Europe policy. I oppose this Bill and hope we will have some amendments that will tone down its harsher elements.

I compliment the Minister and his officials. I welcome this important Bill. I sometimes wonder if Senators Connor and Norris live in the real world. Irish people cannot leave the country unless they have proper visas or passports and it should be likewise for those coming into the country. There is no need for people to travel in containers enabling certain people to make vast amounts of money. There is work in this country for people who come in on work permits and there are still companies looking for these people. We must compliment the Minister for Enterprise and Employment on speeding up the process of obtaining work permits and on the improvements in the system.

It would not be right to have an open-door system of entry. Before 1997 we did not have many applications for work permits, nor were there many illegal immigrants here. Because of the good policies of this Government, the economy has been turned round and it is now the place to work and live. We welcome those who come to the country in the proper manner.

The number of people who emigrated from Ireland in the past was mentioned. Those people emigrated legally to find work. Hardship cases among immigrants were also mentioned. There are many Irish people working on the ground to improve conditions in some of the countries from which these hardship cases come. The Minister mentioned that the number of people wishing to come to Ireland stands at around 45,000 a year over the last five years. They serve a need where companies and employers require people. Many of those people have come from some of the hardship countries but they have had proper permits.

We know the unfortunate cases of the people who have died in containers and the numbers involved. That must be stopped. There is an onus on other European countries to do so. I spoke to a driver who travels the Continent and he told me of the stress and strain on hauliers who are under threat of their containers being interfered with and people getting on board. Many of those drivers pick up those containers without knowing they contain illegal immigrants and this leaves a long-term effect on those men. We must recognise that.

Other countries have a responsibility to tackle the crime bosses and the people who are ripping off immigrants in order to get them into this country. This must be looked at but it is not the responsibility of the Minister or his Department officials. What can they do about it?

This Bill needs the support of this House to remedy some of the defects in our law. I welcome that and hope that this Bill will be passed through the Houses of the Oireachtas before the election. Other Senators, particularly Senator Norris, spoke about people fleeing from persecution. Nobody wants to see anyone being persecuted or in difficulty and no people are better than the Irish to help out. We have in the past and will in the future. Once people enter our country legally, there will be a welcome for them, as there has been. There are also health aspects to the problem of people who come in illegally.

We must recognise the great work that has been done in our schools with immigrants. Many illegal immigrants have been catered for well by the schools, the health boards and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which ensured that people were housed properly while they awaited decisions on their asylum applications. We must recognise what has been done for asylum seekers. Before 1997 no one wanted to come to this country – most people wanted to get out. We now have a good country with good laws and this Bill is to be welcomed.

Everybody will not agree with all legislation but I support this Bill and I compliment all those concerned with its drafting. I look forward to its early passage through the House.

I welcome the Minister to the House and I had better welcome the one part of the Bill that I approve of, which is the section that amends the Refugee Act whereby refugees and asylum seekers no longer need the permission of the Minister before they can speak to anyone about their life story or condition. I objected to the original provision very strongly when it was being considered. I said it was a terrible imposition on people to have to seek the Minister's approval before they were in a position to say anything, even to a member of the public.

The rest of the Bill is appalling. I acknowledge that there is a serious problem regarding the trafficking of people on an international scale, but the Bill lumps asylum seekers and the trafficking of people who are economic refugees. I do not know how the two speakers on the other side of the House thought that asylum seekers could possibly have valid documents with them. I have had much work dealing with asylum seekers, many of whom are in the medical profession and have had to flee their own country, having refused to carry out operations such as the amputation of limbs. They did not have valid documents when they fled because they would not have been allowed to cross the borders if they had tried.

Some of this is the most two-faced legislation I have seen introduced in a long time. I am particularly angry about the section 2(1)(c) which states:

that each non-national on board the vehicle seeking to land in the State or to pass through a port in the State in order to travel to another state has with him or her a valid passport or other equivalent document which establishes his or her identity and nationality and, if required by law, a valid Irish transport visa or a valid Irish visa.

How can anyone think that in these countries people are in a position apply to their ministry for justice for such visas? It is ridiculous.

I am most annoyed about how hypocritical we are being about this. For the past few weeks in this House, several Members – particularly Senator Lanigan – have appealed on behalf of a woman who became pregnant and was sentenced to death in a state in northern Nigeria for alleged adultery. As the Minister and Senators are aware, Sharia law has been introduced into northern Nigeria in 13 or 17 states. It is a serious problem for them and is causing a great deal of dissension between the Muslim and Christian communities. I am sure there are some good points in Sharia law but most people in this country are less than enthusiastic about stoning to death women who are accused of becoming pregnant outside marriage. There was uproar about it and people were encouraged to write to the Nigerian ambassador to say how upset they were. I was one of those who did and was relieved to hear that the woman had been given a reprieve so she could suckle her child but was to be buried up to her neck and stoned to death as soon as the child was weaned. I am further relieved to hear that the woman has now been given a total reprieve.

There is another woman in the same situation in a nearby town. What would happen if that woman managed to escape with her baby into Mali, crossing the country with a friendly camel driver or in a jeep, eventually reaching Freetown on the west coast of Africa and managing to get on a boat to Ireland? In Freetown nobody knows who is who, so she could give money to a trafficker for false documents because she could certainly not apply for a passport and a visa to go to Ireland in somewhere like Ibadan – I have never heard of a suggestion so ridiculous in my life.

The woman is fleeing for her life, on a boat bound for Ireland and manages to get into the port of New Ross where she crawls with her child from a container. The Irish people have been pleading for her life for months, so she expects a warm welcome but is instead told to get back on the boat and get out of the country. This is truly ridiculous. We must be either compassionate to people who are in such situations or we must stop pretending by writing letters to the Nigerian ambassador.

People from Somalia and Iraq have told me their stories. They gave money to traffickers and got into the country on false papers. They have been allowed to stay because they were asylum seekers and their conditions were shocking. One man however has not been allowed to stay – he is a doctor who fled because he refused to carry out amputations in the Iraqi army.

At the same time, President Bush is telling us these regimes are supporting terrorism and must be bombed. We are told we must support him and that we are either with him or against him. I agree that these regimes do not seem to have the same views on democracy as we do. However, what do we say if one of those people who is trying to support democracy against the regime manages to get out and come here with false papers? They are being told, "Sorry, you better get back on the boat." I know we are agreeing with President Bush that "you are either with us or against us", but we are being a bit milk and water about this matter.

Senator Moylan said that Irish people bring their passports and visas with them when they leave here and do not travel illegally. I have never known of anyone having to flee for their lives from Ireland, however, apart from fleeing the IRA, loyalist organisations and drug dealers. We have spoken out strongly about the people who had to leave Northern Ireland. It is outrageous and the IRA should allow them to return, but one cannot compare both situations.

I have found that some refugees or asylum seekers will not even contact their relations. Some of them are medical practitioners and the Medical Council has tried to see if they could obtain documents to prove that they are doctors so they could get jobs here. Half the health service is dependent on non-EU doctors, so we would be enthusiastic about having some of these highly qualified people working here. Naturally, the Medical Council has to be careful about who it allow in and they are requested to produce copies of their qualifications and registration details. Some of them even have postgraduate degrees but they are too terrified to seek such documentation from their relations, some of whom have no idea where in the world they are based. They know that in doing so they would place their relatives' lives at risk. The idea of having to have valid passports and visas is patently ridiculous because, having fled their homes, asylum seekers are not in a position to produce such documentation.

Amnesty International has pointed out that the right to asylum and the principle of non-refoulement– not returning people to countries from which they have fled – requires that access to the territory of asylum countries, as well as to a fair and satisfactory asylum procedure, is ensured. I do not see how this legislation can support that. How on earth are carriers supposed to be experts in knowing the difference between valid and invalid passports? I gather that it is difficult, even for those involved in immigration control, to spot the difference because the passports have been so cleverly forged.

Many other countries have run into trouble when introducing similar legislation. I appreciate the difficulties the Minister has had regarding the large number of people arriving in the last few years, but we are now coping with them in a faster and improved manner. It is seriously wrong, however, to ask people who are fleeing for their lives to do the impossible by not allowing them to have access to our territory so that we can properly assess their status.

Pregnant refugees and asylum seekers have now become ashamed of their condition in this country. They think people believe they came here purposely to take advantage of the constitutional right of any child born in Ireland to become an Irish citizen. As I pointed out when discussing the case of the woman in northern Nigeria, some of these women had to flee because they are pregnant. We had 15 cases of concealed pregnancy delivered in the Rotunda Hospital last year, the major of whom were refugees or asylum seekers. They tried to keep their pregnancies secret from everyone until they came to the time of delivery, which is unlike the case of someone arriving here just to give birth. I realise that is a problem and that some people almost go into labour on the other side of the Irish Sea before coming here to give birth. However, those women did not insert the provision into the Constitution, where a child born here is entitled to Irish citizenship; we did it ourselves and reinforced it recently in the Good Friday Agreement. It would be a good idea, therefore, if we stopped blaming those women. It is unfortunate that we always seem to blame those who are trying to escape the most appalling circumstances rather than trying to do something for them.

As regards this legislation, I am also worried about the situation regarding unaccompanied minors. We know that this problem has become more prevalent, although unaccompanied minors are being better dealt with than before. A Nigerian woman is currently before the courts suspected of trafficking in this area. We can cope with this issue, however, and do not need legislation like this. I am willing to give the Minister credit for the fact that we have improved our handling of such matters. It has been a difficult task because it all came upon the Minister very suddenly. It would be better to improve our refugee and asylum procedures rather than introducing legislation like this, which I will oppose.

Like other speakers, particularly Senator Quill, I recognise the work the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, has done during his term of office. I recognise also the valuable contribution he has made to the State and to society in general. He has had to deal with problems that did not face any of his predecessors and on a scale that would test the calibre of any Minister. He has dealt with those problems effectively and humanely. He takes his responsibilities seriously with regard to protecting people who are vulnerable and who come to these shores having fled intolerable regimes.

The tone of the debate has been, in part, very emotional and not in accordance with the facts. In many respects it has not even been in accordance with the legislation before us. The Bill deals primarily with people who are carriers of persons into the State. If I or anybody else leaves the State through Dublin Airport, bound for a European country or elsewhere, we would be asked to produce our passport at the departure desk. It is standard international practice that the point of departure is the point at which the carrier is asked to check the intending passenger's capacity to travel. It is reasonable to have a similar procedure for people entering the State.

It is unfortunate that during the debate we have confused several categories of people. We have confused people who are bona fide travellers, asylum seekers and refugees. Even within refugee status there are different categories, including political and economic refugees, all of whom have to be dealt with differently. The Minister is aware of that. It is legitimate to expect that any carrier bringing people into the State should have to furnish the State with certain minimum requirements.

If one looks at the history of the famine ships that went to the United States – there is one in particular I can think of in Wexford – one will find the ship's manifest with the name of every person that boarded the vessel in Wexford. That happened back in the 1840s and 1850s, so we are not creating something very different. When a ship went down with all souls, at least it was known who was on board.

It is true that Irish people were accepted in the United States and other countries over the years but until Ellis Island was established, there were no restrictions on people travelling abroad. Immigrants were welcomed to the United States because the country was being built at the time. We should be careful about the things that are being said in this debate. It is unfortunate that in dealing with these issues people tend to say things that can be of a racist nature. In the recent past we have heard some echoes of fascism that we thought we had left behind in the 1930s and 1940s. They seem to have resurfaced in our country, which is most unfortunate. However, the substance of the Bill has nothing to do with those issues. It has nothing to do with the fact that when such people arrive here, they are ill-treated and vilified by certain sections of society. Neither the Minister nor anybody else would condone such behaviour. We need to be careful how we approach this matter.

Another aspect is section 5 which deals with the Refugee Act, 1996. Judging by some of the contributions from the Opposition, it is almost as if the Minister had not said anything in his speech. It is worth recording that he said the policy is to ensure anyone arriving in the State who is genuinely in need of its protection is identified as soon as possible after arrival so that he or she can immediately begin the process of integration into society and avail of the rights to which he or she is entitled under the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees. Can anyone say that statement is not something that should be applauded? It should, but listening to the Opposition, it is almost as if the Minister never said it.

He also made the following point: "The Bill also proposes, in section 5(b), to amend section 19 of the Refugee Act to remove the requirement of the Minister's consent where an asylum seeker himself or herself consents to be identified as such in the media.” The provision under section 5(a)(ii) is to protect asylum seekers from unwarranted intrusion by the media, although they can waive that protection. The Minister is attempting to provide the type of protections any civilised society should provide for these people.

My view is straightforward. If a person enters the country as an asylum seeker, he or she should be dealt with properly, humanely and correctly by the State. It is an unfortunate fact that these people are confused with others, some of whom have the right to be here and some who do not. I have made the point before that it would be improper for the Minister and he would be accused of being in dereliction of his duty by the Opposition if he were to allow a system that was so liberal that a criminal from Russia or some other country could enter the State with impunity. The Minister would be the first to be vilified if such a person committed an illegal act or some outrage. There must be a balance and the Minister has achieved that in the legislation. There are humane aspects to the legislation which should be upheld.

The Minister spoke about our international responsibilities under the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees and the New York protocol of 1967. The State undertakes to fulfil its international obligations. It is part of the international community. It will not act in a unilateral way which would be inimical to people who come here in great need. I am sure we would all agree that, if a person must flee a totalitarian regime and has reasonable grounds to believe that his or her life and the lives of his or her family may be at risk, the State should take a humane and reasonable view of that. The difficulty is that we are catching up in terms of the manpower and finance available, not just in the case of asylum seekers and refugees but also in the case of others who want to enter the country legally.

I thank God that this issue is a product of the economic advances in the country in recent years which have made it an attractive place to come and live in. I also thank God that we are finally being exposed to other cultures, colours and creeds, that the criticism which might have been valid at one time and which was levelled by Mr. Trimble can no longer be said to be true of the State and that we welcome pluralism. We welcome other people into our midst and hope that they integrate successfully, that they will be happy, that they will have jobs and that they will be able to rear their families here. I know that is the Minister's objective.

I welcome the Minister to the House and I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation which, from the comments of Senators on this side of the House, is clearly con troversial. One cannot help but think back to the horrendous news we received one Saturday morning a few months ago that immigrants, in an attempt to enter the country illegally, had been found dead in a container after a dreadful journey. Trafficking is a terrible crime and trafficking in vulnerable illegal immigrants must qualify as one of the worst. I would be delighted to be able to say that the legislation will tackle or go some way towards tackling the problem, but I do not believe it will. If anything, it will make the situation worse.

As my colleague, Senator Connor, pointed out, Europe is experiencing one of the largest movements of people for a long time. He pointed out that history is marked by movements of people. Our own people have been part of that until recently. When I travelled on the train today, I met a woman who lived near me. She had a large family of children, some of whom went to school with me. I asked her where they were. Some were in England and others in America where she sometimes visited them. I asked if they were there legally and she said they were not and asked how they could achieve legal status. I also met someone yesterday who was on a short visit from America to see his family. He has not a legal status and does not know if he will get back in when he attempts to return. We have one attitude to that when it is our people and another when people come to our country.

I listened to Senator Quill's constituency colleague, Deputy O'Flynn, on the radio yesterday talking about illegal immigrants, undeserving people and influxes in his constituency. This is a serious topic and how we speak about it is important. What have been described as emotional outbursts on this side of the House have been based on people's genuine and deeply held concerns about how we as members of the European Union deal with this problem.

There is no doubt that, in recent years, we have constructed a fortress around Europe. Despite that, we have not succeeded in keeping people out because they are determined to get in. We must ask ourselves why they are so determined. One need only talk to the people in question and listen to the stories about where they have come from, especially those who have left dire economic and personal circumstances. These are people who have left their country to undertake a hugely perilous journey across Europe in an attempt to make a better life for themselves, often travelling through countries where the language and culture is unknown, in circumstances fraught with danger and in many cases bringing their families with them. The vast majority of people who undertake this journey have a strong desire born out of pure desperation.

We have seen how the economies of eastern Europe have fared since the fall of the Berlin Wall. People there see a prosperous western Europe, which includes this country, something we should be happy about. They want to be part of that.

We have also been in a similar position of seeking economic well-being. Like many thousands of others, as a student I travelled to Germany where people were happy to see us assist their economy during the summer. We were happy to be part of that. Given that people have gone abroad to other countries as near as Britain and as far as the United States and Australia to seek better economic conditions for themselves, why are we so surprised that others should seek that here?

The immigration of recent years has severely tested the Irish attitude to pluralism and diversity and we have a long road to travel before we can even begin to say we are dealing with it successfully. Because there are no racist signs and billboards on display around the country it might appear, from a public relations aspect, that we are all of one mind on the matter, but when one scratches the surface the reality is very different on the ground. Those who are dark skinned or who look "foreign" have often been subjected to racist taunts and not exactly been made to feel welcome. We have a long way still to travel in this regard.

In relation to the Bill, a number of questions arise. How will it work in practice? Leaving aside the whole issue of human rights, as other Senators have commented, how can a person fleeing persecution be expected to have a travel visa or the relevant documentation? Such a requirement really beggars belief. As Senator Taylor-Quinn has pointed out – I commend her remarks – our concern, in the context of the Bill, must be with refugees. I hesitate to use the word "genuine", having regard to the use of the term by Deputy O'Flynn. How can we, in this House, ensure refugees and those rightfully entitled to ask for asylum will have their rights upheld? Having read the Bill repeatedly, I cannot see how it will achieve this. My greatest concern is that we are actually encouraging trafficking. We are, clearly, attempting to make this more difficult, but I fear it will have quite the opposite effect. We know how desperate people are to get into western Europe, including Ireland, and also that traffickers will go to any lengths to carry out their activities and seek out ways of getting around the legislation. In doing so, they will be taking unfair advantage of the most vulnerable people whom we wish to protect and who will be left in an even more difficult situation.

For the reasons I have outlined, I cannot support the Bill and ask the Minister, again, to look at how it can operate in practice. How can genuine carriers be expected to be immigration officers? How can they be expected to assess whether a person is carrying the appropriate documentation? This will simply lead to the generation of false documentation. The traffickers will find ways and means of circumventing the legislation and continuing to exploit people. I have no doubt that will continue to happen.

Carriers' liability is a feature of the law in all other states of the European Union and a requirement of the Schengen acquis. I should emphasise that the Schengen acquis is not the primary reason for initiating this Bill, which was already in train long before that. In addition, the UN convention signed at Palermo makes specific reference to the issue of carriers' liability which is recommended as a measure to be put in place against organised crime. It is an important measure in the fight against trafficking in human beings, including women and children for the purposes of sexual exploitation.

The European Council recently agreed a directive for the harmonisation of carriers' liability penalties. The Council sees carriers' liability as an important element of the response to illegal immigration and the trafficking of human beings into the European Union. As far as we are aware, all countries from which persons arrive in Ireland are signatories to the Geneva Convention and covered by Article 33 which prohibits refoulement.

The purpose of immigration controls is to protect the security and well-being of citizens. In operating these controls, we must take action against those who try to enter the country illegally and those who facilitate them. Carriers' liability is an important instrument in achieving this objective. To suggest we should take no action to combat illegal immigration, trafficking and people smuggling, on the basis that it may affect asylum seekers, is clearly unsustainable. To do so would leave Ireland totally open to this evil trade, playing into the hands of internationally organised criminals.

As I have said, other countries have carriers' liability legislation. I am aware that, as Senators have pointed out, Amnesty International has expressed reservations in relation to the Bill. I have great respect for Amnesty International, which does a great deal of important and valuable work on behalf of humanity. However, I do not hold the view which Fine Gael speakers expressed that the fact of Amnesty International being against something means it is wrong. The fact that it is against it does not make it wrong. In this instance, I believe it is wrong.

Ireland needs this legislation in the same way as every other country. People of many nationalities are currently coming into this country. It is untrue to suggest that we have a fortress mentality. Last year, over 36,000 work visas or permits were issued. Obviously, all of the people who got them came from outside the EEA. They came from very many countries. There is no basis for the accusation that Ireland is building a wall against the world – that is simply not true and never was.

There have been various criticisms of the Bill on the basis of the suggestion that it puts up the type of wall to which I have referred. However, if one looks at the situation with regard to legal migration to Ireland, the many countries from which people have been granted Irish work permits are quite widely spread. Some of the countries involved in the 36,436 Irish work permits issued last year were Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Philippines, South Africa, Romania, the Czech Republic, Russia, Ukraine and Estonia. With regard to business permissions, these were issued to businessmen from the USA, Hong Kong, Australia, Switzerland, Canada, Russia, New Zealand, India, Malaysia, China, Japan, among other nationalities. Work visas were granted to people from the Philippines, India, Romania, Russia, Ukraine, China, Nigeria, Slovakia, Jordan, Pakistan and other nationalities. Working authorisations were granted to people from South Africa, Australia, the United States, New Zealand, Poland, the Czech Republic, Canada, Zimbabwe, Malaysia, Israel and other countries.

It is possible for a person to come to this country by making an application for a work permit or visa. I hold to what I said that, at this point in its history, migration to Ireland is the most liberal in western Europe. It has been stated that, by introducing carriers' liability, Ireland will exclude asylum seekers and refugees from access to protection and, therefore, be in breach of its international obligations. That is not true. The introduction by Ireland of an immigration control mechanism already in operation in many jurisdictions throughout the world will not deny protection. We will not, therefore, be in breach of our international obligations. Such protection is not exclusive to Ireland and is available in all of the main countries of embarkation to Ireland for those who wish to seek it.

International legal commentators recognise that the right to asylum does not grant a right to seek access to whatever state one pleases. The whole concept of asylum shopping is something which the international community rails against. Ireland was a signatory to the Dublin Convention, in which it was quite clear that an individual making an application for asylum was supposed to make it in the country in which he or she could first reasonably have done so. I am not aware of a situation that could arise, therefore, whereby a person seeking to come from France or Britain to Ireland could be denied the right to seek refugee status because they too are signatories to the Geneva Convention of 1951.

They have been. The Minister should know that it happened on a number of occasions. The Algerian and French Governments do not recognise non-government terrorism. People have been exported regularly in danger of their lives.

Will the Senator, please, allow the Minister to continue without interruption?

They are signatories to the convention.

The Minister said he did not know it and I am providing information.

Acting Chairman

The Senator will have an opportunity to comment on Committee Stage.

The Bill does not interfere in any way with the right of a person to seek asylum in Cherbourg, or Schiphol, or wherever it is that an intending passenger without proper travel documents happens to be when trying to embark for Ireland. The countries from which carriers operate routes into Ireland all have highly developed protection mechanisms available for use by those genuinely in need of protection.

That is not so.

It is. Most of them are Dublin Convention countries. Ireland does not have exclusive claim to be the only country in the world, or western Europe, which can give protection to those in fear of persecution, and to suggest otherwise is nonsensical. The Oireachtas recently passed the necessary motions for Ireland to opt into many aspects of the Schengen arrangements, including those relating to carrier sanctions. We are glad to participate with our European partners in these arrangements designed to curb illegal immigration and make it difficult for the international criminals who make a handsome and exploitative profit out of illegal immigration, just as we are participating in the development of European policies on regular migration and a harmonised approach to asylum policies and practices.

None of those criminals were ever caught.

Most of the scheduled passenger routes into Ireland are from within Council of Europe states. Accordingly, to that extent, these proposals do not prevent people from arriving in Council of Europe states. The remaining scheduled passenger routes are from North America, where both the United States and Canada already have highly developed asylum systems of their own, and protection is available for those who fear persecution.

There is no inconsistency between the proposals in the current Bill and the often stated policy of the Government to ensure any person arriving in the State who is genuinely in need of the protection of the State is identified as soon as possible after he or she arrives in order that he or she can immediately start the process of integration into society and take up the rights to which they are entitled under the 1951 convention. Nor is there any inconsistency in the strategy of catering for regular migration in Ireland in accordance with Government policies, and the policy of curbing efforts to circumvent immigration controls. By adding to the effectiveness of immigration controls the Bill will make the international organised crime of smuggling and traf ficking more difficult for those who carry it out and thus reduce the scope for exploitation of vulnerable people as well as for garnering illicit profits.

The Bill prescribes offences for carriers only, and does not punish improperly documented passengers. There are ample provisions in the Refugee Act, 1996, to protect the right of the person who arrives here claiming asylum to remain here until the application has been brought to a proper termination, whether by completing consideration of it under our own systems or by transferring it to another EU member state under the Dublin Convention. These provisions are not affected in any way by the Bill.

I think it was stated by Senator Henry that carriers' liability amounts directly or indirectly to constructive refoulement. This is an untenable argument. The non-refoulement principle, enshrined in Article 33 of the 1951 Geneva Convention and Irish law at section 5 of the Refugee Act, 1996, prohibits the return of a person to a country where he or she would be at risk of persecution. The notion that Ireland might, even indirectly, seek to subject to refoulement a person refused passage to Ireland by a carrier as a result of the Bill simply does not hold water, since such a person is not, and has not been, on Irish territory. There is no question in such circumstances of Ireland sending or returning that person anywhere. Where a person goes, or whether a person stays where they are, after being refused passage by a carrier is a matter entirely for him or her and the authorities in the country concerned. All the countries from which carriers operate into the State are parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and equally bound by the prohibition on refoulement at Article 33 of the convention.

Does the Minister regard Nigeria as a safe country?

Irrespective of which country one comes from we have an independent process for the examination of each application for refugee status. It is open to an officer to grant refugee status. A person not granted such status has the right of appeal and if he or she is not satisfied with the procedures he or she has a right to seek a judicial review in the High Court. Due process is observed at all times. If all else fails, it is possible for the person concerned to make an application to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of the day to seek to stay on humanitarian grounds. These procedures are among the most sophisticated in the world.

Does the Minister have a list of safe countries of origin in the Department?

Acting Chairman

Can we deal with these matters on Committee Stage when we reach the appropriate sections?

Some countries operate what is known as a "white list" of countries.

Does the Department have a black list?

We do not have such a list.

That is very convenient.

All applications from individuals who arrive in this country seeking asylum will be determined. That has been the case traditionally and is the current situation. In so far as there is a list, of necessity it must be one that changes from day to day, for the very reason that a problem might occur in Kosovo tomorrow that might not be a problem next year. Ireland has been very willing—

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

Senator Connor's endearing propensity to engage in conversation during debate is not appropriate.

—to participate in regard to what would be described as programme refugees and has done so, not just in regard to Kosovo, but also in regard to other countries, such as Vietnam.

They are the easy ones.

I want to deal with the safe country principle also. Leading academic commentators on human rights and refugee law – most recently, Dr. Rosemary Byrne of TCD and Professor Stephen Legotnsky of Washington University, at a recent seminar on asylum law in Trinity College Dublin – acknowledge that the right to seek asylum does not imply a right to seek it where one pleases. It follows that the right is satisfied if the individual in need of protection has the opportunity to obtain protection wherever it is that he or she finds himself or herself. It is a matter for the individual to seek to avail of that opportunity. Asylum is available in the countries of embarkation to Ireland, and it is open to someone in need of protection to seek and get it there. The Refugee Act fully respects this provision of the 1951 convention. It is untrue to suggest that we do not issue visas on protection grounds. As recently as 18 months ago, Ireland issued visas and travel documents to many fleeing the turmoil in Kosovo in order to facilitate their arrival in the State. We have done the same in respect of other countries such as Vietnam.

With regard to carriers' liability shifting the State's responsibility in human rights matters onto private carriers, as has been alleged by Senator Norris, it cannot be seriously maintained that any element of human rights decision-making is involved in a carrier making basic routine checks on an intending passenger's passport or other travel papers. One might equally argue that a carrier which refuses to give free passage to a penniless passenger is thereby potentially interfering with his or her human right to seek asylum in the intended destination. Human rights decision-making will continue to reside where it is at present and where it properly belongs, with the State mechanisms established by law for that purpose.

It has been stated that carrier sanctions will require carrier staff to undertake the work of immigration officers, which is to grossly overstate the effect of the Bill. This contention was supported by the Fine Gael contributors. Immigration officers have to examine those arriving in the State with reference to a broad range of criteria—

Are they linguistically qualified?

—including the purpose of the entry, whether the person has sufficient funds, whether the person is seeking to enter the workforce and considerations of national security.

How many languages do they speak?

There is also the routine task of checking that the person has the appropriate documents. Only the last matter is the subject of the new Bill which does not change, in any respect, the powers and functions of immigration officers. Its effect will be that carriers will carry out the most rudimentary of checks to ensure that a passport is valid and relates to the person presenting it. They will also ensure that, where necessary, there is a current valid visa in the passport. Nothing more is required of them. They will not ask questions about the purpose of the journey or the means of the passenger beyond their ability to pay the fare. Carrier staff will be assisted, as some are at present, by having training and advice provided by immigration officers to help them spot the more obvious forgeries and falsifications. It is, basically, a mechanical task.

Will the Minister disregard the advice of the airlines themselves?

The allegation that the asylum obligations of the State will be transferred to carriers is utterly without foundation. The notion that carriers would, as a result of this legislation, be expected to assess an intending passenger's need for protection is as absurd as the notion that a carrier, in deciding not to sell a ticket to a person with insufficient credit on his or her credit card, was therefore deciding that the intending passenger had no valid claim on protection.

Until now, carriers have not had to bother with the issue of the human rights of their passengers, or potential passengers, and this legislation will not change that position. A rudimentary check for travel documentation cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered equal to the sort of consideration it is incumbent on states to apply to decisions regarding the entry of individuals to their territory. That responsibility will remain exclusively one of states. It has been asserted in some quarters that the complexity of the issue means decisions relating to undocumented passengers should only be taken by trained staff, following a full and comprehensive evaluation of international and national law. The logic of this assertion is that carrier companies should continually weigh up the human rights implications of selling tickets to intending passengers, which is utterly untenable.

In the normal course of business, carriers have two very straightforward and purely commercial issues to determine at the point of embarkation The first is to determine if the intending customer has sufficient money to pay for his or her ticket and the second is to decide whether he or she is likely to cause a problem for the carrier during the passage, or on arrival. Neither of these matters involves any consideration of international law or human rights law and the first can usually be determined readily at the point of intended embarkation. The second can be more problematic for the carrier and depends on a number of factors, including the health or condition of the intending passenger and whether he or she will be admitted to the destination country at the end of the journey. A carrier may think twice about allowing an obviously drunk person to board, particularly in the case of an aircraft.

This legislation puts a limited aspect of this last factor on a clear legislative basis. A carrier can now be confident that the passenger is unlikely to be refused entry because of improper documentation. These provisions are in ease not only of the bona fide traveller, but also of the carrier since it is generally the responsibility of the carrier to return a person refused entry to his or her place of embarkation or country of origin. The carrier must bear the cost of the return.

It has been asserted that carrier liability will drive people into the hands of traffickers and smugglers. Smuggling is, by definition, the business of illegitimately circumventing legal controls and the very existence of any such controls can be said to drive people into the hands of smugglers. One can eliminate smuggling by abolishing controls. One could also eliminate the trafficking in drugs by legalising them, but that is not an option in the way the same course of action is not an option in this case. The submission itself accepts that there must be immigration controls. The additional immigration controls proposed in the Bill, particularly when combined with the very practical guidelines the Irish Road Haulage Association has agreed with the Garda national immigration bureau and my officials, will make life harder for those engaged in the criminal activity of smuggling and trafficking in humans. Naturally, I make no apology for that.

The closing of access at ports and airports has been cited as a reason for people to seek alternative means of entry by hiding in trucks and containers. They will, therefore, fall victim to people smugglers. The very fact of immigration controls means that smugglers are there to offer services to those who wish to evade those controls. The logic of the argument is that, because people are willing to put themselves at risk, or are willing to offer a service which puts others at risk in order to circumvent legitimate immigration controls, we should abolish the root cause of that risk by removing the controls themselves. Even the harshest critics of this Bill recognise that states have a right to exercise immigration controls. This Bill is intended to make those controls more effective and the fact that it will do that is not any more likely to encourage people to seek out the services of smugglers than is currently the case. As far as people travelling to Ireland are concerned, effective asylum processes are available in the states at either end of the journey and it is open to a person genuinely in need of protection to seek it without having to embark for Ireland.

Given that the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000, deals with those who profit from smuggling, it has been stated that carrier sanctions are unnecessary. This argument misunderstands the purpose of this Bill, which is to address the problem of irregular movement into the State of people who do not have the requisite documentation. The aim of the Bill is not to punish people who act mala fide in circumventing the proper immigration processes by smuggling people into the State. Such acts are already addressed by the Illegal Immigrants (Trafficking) Act, 2000. The purpose of this Bill is to create an incentive for bona fide carriers to ensure that those they bring to the State meet the requirements for entry, at least as far as the necessary documentation is concerned. It is one part of the approach to the problem, the other being co-operation of immigration staff in helping carriers to comply with the Bill's demands. It must be clear to everybody that clandestine travel is dangerous. What is not self-evident is the rationale behind arguments that would, if carried to their logical conclusion, dictate the elimination of immigration controls in order to eliminate the hazards undertaken by people who seek to circumvent them.

This legislation addresses the problem of improperly documented non-nationals arriving in the State by requiring carriers to ensure that passengers presented by them for entry have a current, valid passport or other acceptable form of national identity document. Where necessary, a current, valid visa must also be presented. The Bill creates legal obligations for carriers regarding their passengers on arrival in the State and failure to fulfil them will be an offence carrying a fine of €3,000 in each case. Carriers can avoid prosecution by paying an on-the-spot penalty of €1,500 per case. Specific defences provided for in the Bill are designed to protect carriers who have taken all reasonable measures to ensure compliance.

This Bill is one of the two essential elements in addressing the question of improperly documented passengers. The other element is co-operation between carriers and the immigration authorities to ensure that potential passengers without the documents required by Irish law can be identified at an earlier stage in their journey. Many countries throughout the world, including all our EU partners, have been operating systems similar to this one for years and have found carrier liability to be a useful additional tool in limiting irregular migration.

Regular migration to Ireland has grown rapidly in the last few years and the number of visas issued in 2000 was 68,000, with the outturn for 2001 in the region of 100,000. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has greatly increased the number of work permits issued to non-EEA nationals, which has risen to 36,000 in the last year. This figure is indicative of the increase in those coming to Ireland in, I stress, compliance with immigration law. Alongside that, the numbers of those entering or seeking to enter the State irregularly has also grown and to fail to address the issue would be a mistake. It is not unreasonable that those who benefit from carrying passengers to the State should be asked to carry out the basic checks involved in ensuring that those passengers are properly documented.

This legislation does not arise as a result of the Schengen acquis. It is stand alone legislation. For the record, Article 26 of Schengen provides for carrier liability.

It was argued that this Bill owed its genesis to a French initiative in November 2001. The Bill was in gestation long before that. Senator Norris advocated that Ireland should flout European directives with a view to having the legitimacy of carrier liability arrangements tested by the European Court of Justice. It is interesting to note that carrier's liability has been in place for many years in many countries which, like Ireland, are parties to the European Convention on Human Rights. Not once in that time has a case come before the European Court of Human Rights seeking to impugn such arrangements, never mind to strike down such arrangements.

It has been suggested that the effect of this Bill will be to enable improperly documented asylum seekers who arrive in New Ross to be refused admission. That is not the case. The Refugee Act contains robust provisions guaranteeing admission to the Irish asylum process and to Irish soil in those circumstances. They are not in any way affected by this Bill. With regard to comments attributed to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees liaison office, since the events of 11 September 2001, the head of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees has issued a statement recognising that document checks are an important measure in combating and preventing acts of terrorism.

They issued a visa to Mr. Atta months after 11 September.

The Minister must be allowed to reply without interruption.

With regard to the European Union seeking to build a fortress Europe, the truth is that in its immigration and asylum proposals, the EU is attempting to devise a common immigration and asylum system which will be to the benefit of the member states and those third country nationals seeking to enter the EU. This includes a significant new proposal published last autumn for the entry of third country nationals for employment and self-employment purposes. If Europe does not take action against those responsible for trafficking and smuggling people, it will leave the door wide open for unscrupulous individuals and gangs to ply their evil trade across our Continent. If we do not firmly tackle this activity, we risk creating more victims such as the unfortunate people who arrived in Wexford last December.

Human trafficking and smuggling is a modern day slave trade and a lucrative business for those who control it. We must take action to put these people out of business—

Not one of them has been caught and there are several operating in this country.

—and to assist their victims. I met with Amnesty International and many other groups in relation to this matter. I remain convinced that this legislation is appropriate. Nothing I have heard or read has convinced me to the contrary. We are now dealing quickly with asylum applications. By June at the latest, all applications being dealt with will be 2002 applications. We have increased the number of staff from 20 in 1997 to approximately 700. There is an elaborate system in place but it can be difficult for the reception and integration agency to deal with approximately 1,000 applicants for asylum every month.

We will continue to fulfil our international and humanitarian obligations. However, let nobody be under the impression that it is possible for an island nation such as this, on the periphery of Europe, to solve the immigration problems of the world. It cannot and never will be done. I am as sympathetic as anybody else to the plight of unfortunate people and sometimes I have likened my job to being the lonesome boatman on the ferry on the Rubicon River.

More like a boatman on the River Styx.

However, in my position I must ensure that the economy and security of the State are protected. I must also ensure that people's human dignity is respected at all times. I respectfully suggest that, despite criticisms to the contrary, we have succeeded in doing that. The best weather-vane to judge that may be that my position has been attacked from the left and from the right, but it has never been undermined.

Question put.

Bohan, Eddie.Bonner, Enda.Callanan, Peter.Chambers, Frank.Cox, Margaret.Dardis, John.Farrell, Willie.Gibbons, Jim.Glynn, Camillus.Kett, Tony.Kiely, Rory.

Lanigan, Mick.Leonard, Ann.Lydon, Don.Mooney, Paschal.Moylan, Pat.Nolan, M. J.Ó Fearghail, Seán.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Quill, Máirín.Walsh, Jim.

Níl

Burke, Paddy.Coghlan, Paul.Connor, John.Coogan, Fintan.Costello, Joe.Doyle, Avril.

Henry, Mary.Manning, Maurice.Norris, David.O'Toole, Joe.Ridge, Thérèse.Ross, Shane.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Farrell and Gibbons; Níl, Senators Burke and Norris.
Question declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 28 March 2002.
Top
Share