For the benefit of Members, speeches are confined to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the main spokespersons for Fine Gael, the Labour Party, the Progressive Democrat Party and the Green Party, who shall be called in that order and shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case. It was agreed on the Order of Business that time could be shared.
Racial Discrimination: Motion.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann
1. affirms, in accordance with the principles of international human rights law, the right of everyone to live free of violence, discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, colour, national or ethnic origin or membership of the traveller community;
2. condemns sentiments and manifestations of racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism as inimical to respect for the dignity of all human beings and particularly deplores hostile statements or acts directed against those from other countries seeking refuge in the State;
3. supports all appropriate efforts to promote harmonious relations between different groups characterised by reference to race and related factors;
4. notes
(i) that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, building on the work of his predecessors, has initiated the Employment Equality Bill which would, inter alia, make provision for the promotion of equality and the prohibition of discrimination and harassment in employment and related areas on the basis of factors including race, colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin or membership of the traveller community, and
(ii) the Government's stated commitment to bring forward an Equal Status Bill which would have a similar effect in relation to non-employment areas;
5. requests the Government, following enactment of the legislation referred to in paragraph 4, to take steps for the ratification of the International Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the 21st day of December, 1965;
6. notes the measures taken in Ireland resulting from the Resolution of the European Union Council of Ministers designating 1997 as European Year against Racism;
7. commends the efforts of voluntary groups who have taken initiatives to combat racism and xenophobia;
8. urges the earliest possible implementation of the Refugee Act 1996.
This motion is in the names of Deputies John Bruton, Quinn, O'Malley, De Rossa, Gormley and myself.
Deputies will be aware of the context in which this debate is taking place. The Taoiseach recently agreed to a proposal by Deputy Bruton that the terms of a motion should be agreed by the Whips and that this motion should make clear the position of all sides of the House on the matter. The motion before us today has been agreed by all parties and makes clear that the House rejects racism in all its forms.
It is possible one of the factors in the emergence of racist attitudes here, although such attitudes are never justifiable, is the confusion which currently exists about illegal immigration, in particular confusion between an illegal immigrant and a refugee. The distinction has wide recognition internationally. An illegal immigrant, as the title suggests, is a person who enters any State in breach of the law. A refugee is a person who has a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality etc. It is obviously not an option for the State to turn a blind eye to the problem of illegal immigration. The only rational and responsible course is to enforce the law. If the law is not enforced, in other words, if the "blind eye" approach is adopted, it increases rather than reduces the risk of racist attitudes and actions.
(Dublin West): What about the Irish in America in the 1980s? Politicians flew across the Atlantic every month to beg the US authorities to make them legal.
The Minister without interruption.
There are a number of reasons for this. First, the general public in the jurisdiction affected by illegal immigration soon become aware that there is abuse and, not surprisingly, there is public and media comment concerning this abuse. Second, the criminal elements who organise illegal immigration are encouraged to press their advantage even further, which can considerably worsen the problem within a short period of time.
(Dublin West): This is disgraceful. This debate is supposed to be against racism but the Minister is fomenting it.
This is the international experience which we cannot ignore. There is no doubt illegal trafficking in people is being well organised by criminal elements and a great many people who fall into the hands of these elements are being exploited in the process. A number of arrangements have been put in place to enable us to deal effectively with the problem of illegal immigration on one hand and to ensure fair treatment for genuine refugee applicants on the other.
With regard to the implementation of the Refugee Act 1996, I have told this House on a number of occasions that I have implemented sections 1, 2, 5, 22 and 25 of the Act with effect from 29 August last. I have also told the House that there is at present a High Court injunction preventing the appointment of a refugee applications commissioner under the Act. Because of this litigation I am not in a position to appoint a refugee applications commissioner, an appointment central to the introduction of the remaining sections of the Act. In the absence of a commissioner no applications for refugee status could be considered. In fact, the whole process would come to a complete stop. This would be highly undesirable for all concerned.
In light of the impasse over the appointment of the refugee applications commissioner, my desire to deal with all applications for refugee status fairly, efficiently and in a timely manner, and the need to put in place an interim arrangement to deal with the current large caseload, I arranged for my officials to meet the representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Both the UNHCR and I were satisfied that the arrangement made in 1985, involving formal consultation with UNHCR in each case, was no longer workable due to the huge increase in numbers applying and that a new approach was necessary. Extensive consultations with the representative have resulted in a new arrangement being put in place establishing a procedure to deal with the backlog of cases which has built up over the last two years or so and currently stands at about 4,000. In a letter regarding the new arrangement the UNHCR said, inter alia,
overall we believe that the revised document provides for a balanced administrative procedure pending the entry into force of the Refugee Act.
Details of the new arrangement have been circulated to Members of this House and a copy has been placed in the Library.
In addition to the new arrangement, the House will be aware I have received Government approval for the recruitment of additional staff to help deal with the applications on hand. I expect the new staff will be in place in early 1998. New accommodation has also been obtained to house the new staff, together with the Eastern Health Board's refugee unit, the UNHCR and a proposed legal advice service for asylum seekers. This will be a "one stop shop" for asylum seekers and should be ready in spring 1998.
The new arrangement, which follows broadly the philosophy of the Refugee Act, is an interim measure pending a review by me of the Act and the conclusion of the legal action currently taking place. In this latter regard, a statement of claim in the matter was only received by the Chief State Solicitor from the plaintiff last week. In so far as a review of the Act is concerned, this has been necessitated by the large increase in applications over the past year. When the Act was drafted it was envisaged that applications would be of the order of a few hundred per annum not thousands as has turned out to be the case. When the number of applications began to increase last year, it was decided that the refugee applications commissioner position should be changed from a part-time appointment to a contract of employment for three years. With current numbers, even this solution will be unworkable. The Act provides for only one commissioner, with no powers of delegation. One person could not possibly cope with the number of applications on hands, and the current backlog would only be exacerbated.
The level of new applications has begun to fall over the past few months. If this level of decrease continues and the new arrangements result, as is the intention, in the backlog being cleared, then it may well be possible to implement the provisions of the Act pertaining to the commissioner as currently drafted. If not, I will bring forward fresh proposals to Government.
I am confident the measures now being put in place will speed up significantly the processing of asylum applications. I also stress that I do not believe that the procedures for dealing with asylum applications, be they statutory or administrative in nature, have in themselves anything to do with the issue of racism. The provisions of the Act and the new administrative arrangement are procedural in nature and ensure that Ireland meets its international obligations in the area of asylum seekers and refugees.
In referring to the Refugee Act, there is one point I want to make absolutely clear. Those who are in need of protection and who are entitled as refugees to the protection of this State from persecution will receive that protection. That is a reflection of our humanitarian concern as a civilised people and a commitment willingly entered into in accordance with our obligations under the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees, and in accordance with our role in the international community generally.
I have seen references recently to refugees being deported and denied the opportunity of protection in Ireland. I dismiss those ill-informed claims out of hand and reiterate what I believe is the will of the Irish people — to ensure that those who are genuinely in need of and entitled to protection in the State are granted it. However, there is an important need to distinguish between our humanitarian response to refugees in need of protection and the duty of the Government to respond to the pressures of illegal immigration and those who may seek to abuse our humanitarian concerns. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees commented recently on the abuse of asylum procedures by illegal immigrants and persons who have already achieved protection in one country but move in an irregular manner to another. It is worth recalling what was said. The UNHCR said the intentional misuse of asylum procedures is to be discouraged, and attempts by people with no valid claim to international protection take advantage of asylum procedures and create serious problems by clogging those procedures. The UNHCR went on to say such claims have greatly contributed to the confusion between refugees and illegal immigrants and that this, in turn, reflected negatively on the asylum process and, hence, on bona fide refugees.
It also commented recently on another major concern, the phenomenon of asylum seekers who leave countries in which they have or could have found protection to seek asylum elsewhere. The UNHCR emphasised that movements of this kind have a destabilising effect on international efforts aimed at finding durable solutions for refugees.
One thing that concerns me — and it is referred to in the motion — is that there should be no hostility to those of other races or national origins who come here seeking asylum. We owe these people basic standards of decency and courtesy in our dealings with them. My Department and all the staff involved are pledged to uphold those standards. What I am doing is ensuring that all persons who come here seeking asylum are treated in a fair and humane way with due respect for their dignity.
It is regrettable that in recent years such applicants have been left waiting for long periods for decisions on their applications. The uncertainty that causes can have an unsettling effect on genuine refugees. I have taken steps to put new arrangements in place to deal with applications for refugee status in a fair, efficient and timely manner. These arrangements, which have been welcomed by the UNHCR as providing for a balanced administrative procedure, will benefit from the addition of more than 70 new staff to ensure that applications are processed as efficiently and as quickly as possible. Applicants deserve that their cases be subject to fair and effective procedures and that is what will happen in accordance with the measures I am taking.
I turn now to the issue of improving relations between the traveller community and the settled community. In July 1995, the Task Force on the Travelling Community, established by the Fianna Fáil-Labour Government in 1993, referred in its report to the need to improve relationships between travellers and settled people through the development of mutual understanding and respect. It said this requires an adjustment in attitudes towards one another and an acceptance of each other's culture. It called for increased levels of contact, particularly at local community level, and expressed a view that this would result in a better understanding on the part of the settled population of the general needs of travellers and would enable travellers to understand more about the anxieties of the settled community. In this way the present levels of conflict and tension could be reduced.
Since the publication of the task force report, Government Departments have been working on the implementation of at least some of its recommendations. However, the previous Government decided against centralised monitoring of the implementation of recommendations. This was in contrast to the follow-up on the report of the Second Commission on the Status of Women and the report of the Commission on the Status with People with Disabilities. This approach to travellers was flawed and mistaken. Accordingly, I have decided to set up a monitoring committee, representative of all relevant interests both in Government and outside, which will be chaired by my Department. Already my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Mary Wallace, has had preliminary discussions with traveller organisations about this monitoring structure, and my Department will be in contact with those organisations shortly to discuss the matter further. My hope is that we can put a monitoring arrangement in place in the near future.
In arriving at this decision I drew on previous Fianna Fáil work on improving the welfare of the travelling community. In March of this year we published a position paper entitled A New Deal for the Travelling Community. This paper called for the implementation of the recommendations of the task force and for periodic reports of the progress made on this. Commitments on these lines were repeated in our election manifesto. It remains for me to implement these in a practical way.
I have recently initiated the Employment Equality Bill. It covers essentially the same ground as the Bill which was found repugnant to the Constitution by the Supreme Court earlier this year except that it no longer contains the unconstitutional features. It is my intention that the Bill will be debated by the House in the next session and will be enacted as speedily as possible. As far as the subject of our debate today is concerned, namely, race issues, the Bill is substantially the same as that brought forward by the previous Government.
I am also committed to bringing forward an equal status Bill in the course of next year. This will cover similar ground to the previous Equal Status Bill. As Deputies may be aware, in ruling that the previous Bill was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court did not review each and every constitutional issue relevant to the Bill. For this reason, revising the Bill to produce a new equal status Bill is necessarily more complicated than was the case with the Employment Equality Bill. I can assure Deputies, however, this work will be pushed ahead with all possible speed.
The enactment of employment equality and equal status legislation first became Government policy when Fianna Fáil and Labour entered office in 1993. I pay tribute to that Government and to my predecessors in the most recent Government for their work on this important legislation. It is my intention that what remains to be done will be speedily accomplished during my term of office.
Not unrelated to equality legislation is another issue mentioned in the motion, ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This important human rights convention has been ratified by the overwhelming majority of the international community, including all other member states of the European Union. Therefore, it behoves us to proceed to ratification as soon as possible. The advice available to Government has been that the enactment of the equality legislation is necessary for Ireland to fulfil her obligations under the convention. As the motion states, when the legislation is in place we will take the necessary steps for ratification. One of these steps would be the introduction of a motion in the House to approve the terms of the convention in accordance with Article 29.5.2 of the Constitution.
The motion also refers to European Year Against Racism 1997 which was designated as such by the EU Council of Ministers. It arose from concern at a perceived rise in racism and xenophobia throughout Europe. Its key objectives included the need to highlight the threat posed by these phenomena to economic and social cohesion within the EU and to promote exchange of experience and effective strategies for dealing with the problem.
As called for in the EU Council Resolution designating the year against racism, a national co-ordinating committee was established here with representatives from Government Departments as well as non-governmental organisations. The committee is chaired by a representative of the Platform Against Racism, an umbrella body of organisations concerned with this problem. I pay tribute to representatives of non-governmental organisations who have participated in the work of the national co-ordinating committee and in the many activities which have taken place around the country in connection with the European Year Against Racism. Without the active participation of the NGO sector, the year against racism would have lost much of its significance.
Some activities were organised as part of the European Year Against Racism. In the area of education, my colleague, Deputy Micheál Martin, Minister for Education and Science, designated 23 October as a special anti-racism day for schools and youth clubs. A special education pack was published by the national co-ordinating committee to facilitate awareness raising in this area. Associated with this was an award scheme. The schools that participated in the scheme will be specially recognised at the closing ceremony of the year. This will take place tomorrow evening and the President will officiate.
Another awards scheme initiated by the national co-ordinating committee concerns the media. The winners will be announced tomorrow night and the prizes will be presented by the President. The objective of this scheme was to recognise the work of journalists in highlighting issues of racism, anti-racism measures, and the promotion of cultural diversity in Ireland.
I have approved grants of more than £12,000 for regional and local projects linked to the aims of the year against racism. In all, more than £20,000 out of the total allocation has been spent in assisting such projects. This was money well spent because there is a need to articulate the message of the European Year Against Racism at local as much as at national level. In addition, a number of Irish projects have been successful in securing European funding.
I was pleased to see the national co-ordinating committee placed a strong emphasis on co-operation with counterparts in Northern Ireland. The significant event in this co-operation was a conference held in Dublin Castle in October which explored the issue of racism on both sides of the Border. The European Parliament Office, the National Union of Journalists and the Platform Against Racism were all involved in the organisation of this conference, and a report on it will be published in due course.
Overall, the national co-ordinating committee was concerned that the European Year Against Racism should not be a series of discrete events which would begin and end in 1997. Instead, they wished to bring about a long-term change of attitude on the part of all relevant sectors so that they would take account of any race dimension, in the broadest sense, in their work.
Deputies are likely to suggest that, given the effectiveness with which the 1997 allocation of £100,000 from my Department for the European Year Against Racism was spent, such funding in this area should be continued into the future. Although, in the nature of things, this was a oneoff allocation, a case can be made for the continuation of such funding. Accordingly, my Department is prepared to consider, within the constraints of the available resources, applications for assistance, including support for research, in the general area of combating racism.
On the issue of discouraging intolerance and racism in our society, I reject recent efforts at demonising the officials involved in the delicate task of working with asylum applicants and implementing the immigration laws generally. Suggestions that the individuals involved are racist or devoid of human decency are not just wide of the mark, they are grossly untrue and offensive and I reject them out of hand.
I remind the House of the background to the Taoiseach's agreement to provide time for this debate. There was great concern in the House at remarks made by Deputy Ivor Callely which were construed as being anti asylum seeker. These remarks included disparaging references to the religious practices of some asylum seekers. In order that the House would not become inflamed by this issue in an unproductive way I suggested that all party leaders should sign a motion giving a clear political signal of all parties' opposition to racism in all its forms. I greatly regret the Taoiseach scheduled this debate for a day on which he could not be present.
I also regret the content of the speech by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. No doubt it was prepared with great care by the sections in the various Departments which contributed to the different parts of it on a scissors and paste basis but it contained no clear message from Fianna Fáil.
It is a justification for Deputy Callely's remarks.
It is particularly inappropriate that Deputy Callely is not sitting on the backbenches where he normally sits but is ostentatiously on the Front Bench beside the Minister. I have not seen a Government backbencher brought forward in this way in the past. That Deputy Callely should be brought forward during a debate on racism to sit on the Front Bench in a clear symbolic way to appear to give colour to the Minister's speech is most inappropriate. I also regard the presence behind the Minister of Deputy Lawlor who referred to floods of refugees during the general election campaign as equally inappropriate.
On a point of order, I was not brought forward to the Front Bench.
Deputy Callely referred to the bleeding of lambs in the back garden, which is a clear reference——
I regret to interrupt the leader of the Opposition but I wish to make a point of order. Deputy Callely was not brought forward by anyone to the seat he assumes. Obviously this was his decision.
Why is he there?
He appeared there by some process of osmosis.
My purpose in suggesting a joint motion on this issue was to ensure we would not be divisive. I regard Deputy Callely's decision to promote himself to the Front Bench for this debate and no other as inappropriate in the circumstances.
On a point of order, Deputy Bruton referred to comments made by me. However, all I did was call for action so that unfortunate immigrants could be dealt with.
That is not a point of order.
It is a point of order. I want the record of the House to show that I did nothing other than contribute to the debate on these unfortunate people in a positive way. I greatly resent any imputation by Deputy Bruton that I did otherwise.
(Interruptions.)
There is a strict time limit on the debate and I ask Deputies to desist from interrupting.
Deputy Bruton's comments are offensive and wrong.
Deputy Bruton should not mislead the House in regard to comments made by me. I clarified my points during the debate on the Estimates. Deputy Bruton is referring to an article——
Deputy Bruton is in possession and he should be allowed to proceed without interruption.
Deputy Callely referred to refugees carrying on in a culture which is not akin to Irish culture. He also referred to the bleeding of lambs in the back garden.
On a point of order——
We cannot continue the debate in this fashion.
Those remarks are not appropriate——
The Deputy is wrong and he knows it. He is cherry picking.
I am quoting what the Deputy said.
Not during the Estimates debate which was held after that article was printed.
The article is on the public record. The Deputy chose to give the interview and I am quoting what he said.
The Deputy is not quoting me correctly. I stated in the House the day after the article was printed that terms had been attributed to me which I did not use.
The journalist denied that.
These remarks were reported in The Irish Times by a reputable journalist, Mr. Paul Cullen. If Deputy Callely is saying he did not make those remarks——
I have already said that in the House.
——then he is suggesting that Mr. Paul Cullen misreported him. This is a very serious matter and I suggest the Deputy should pursue it elsewhere.
I have done so.
We are in the final days of the European Year Against Racism. Sadly, Ireland can look back on its contribution to the year with more shame than pride. This year our attitudes to those who are different from the majority of us, whether in terms of skin colour, country of origin or economic status, were shown sometimes to be instinctively hostile. It is a year in which the Department of Justice showed corporate contempt for asylum seekers to the extent that they were allowed to queue in the rain outside the Department for hours on end. It was also a year in which a Government TD, Deputy Callely, used inflammatory language about asylum seekers.
Some of our most distinguished citizens are the descendants of refugees who were once asylum seekers. We do not have an equivalent study but a British study of refugees shows that the skill level of current refugees in Britain well exceeds that of the average of the British population. Some 77 per cent of Sudanese refugees and 54 per cent of Ugandan refugees in Britain have degrees or professional qualifications. Although no refugees had English as a native tongue, more than 90 per cent could speak one other language in addition to their mother tongue and 65 per cent could speak at least two other languages.
Taking all these features into account one can see that, on average, asylum seekers will be a substantial asset to this country as it seeks to globalise its economic reach. Given a chance, asylum seekers will work as hard, or harder, than native Irish people. They will want to succeed and to show they are contributing positively to the country which has provided them with a home. For this to happen, they must be given a chance.
The Deputy's Government did nothing about it.
If the initial reaction is hostile, the refugee family will turn in on itself and become financially dependent rather than independent. A welcoming attitude by the host community will, on the other hand, tap talents and abilities which will enrich Ireland morally, culturally and economically.
Agreed.
Unfortunately, that is not how the situation is seen by many Irish people. In self serving images many Irish people like to imagine we are an especially benign, tolerant and easy going race. This is easy to sustain in a society which is largely homogenous, where all speak the same language, worship in similar churches and share a common skin colour. However, when our successful economy becomes a refuge for those who are different from us the myth is challenged and shown up for what it is.
When it comes to sharing our space with those less fortunate than ourselves we are not, perhaps, as generous a people as we would like to portray ourselves to the world as being. As the author John Ardagh noted in his excellent work, On Ireland and the Irish, “the Irish are keen to be part of Europe but their gaze is mainly at themselves”. This self regarding attitude contributes in no small way to our closed minds and attitudes to those who are different from us.
Racism is a daily reality for thousands of people living in Ireland, whether they are travellers, asylum seekers, refugees, foreign workers or Irish citizens whose skin colour or native tongue is different from that of the majority. This racism manifests itself in hundreds of different ways, ranging from a basic lack of courtesy in shops to racist graffiti on walls and arson attacks on caravans and homes.
For many years we have been rightly proud of the contribution Irish people have made to the development of other countries. In parts of Africa, for example, our aid workers have made an immense contribution to economic and social development. We are proud to see television pictures of white Irish aid workers teaching or feeding young black children, provided this activity is taking place thousands of miles away. However, if black children are put onto an Irish street or into an Irish school the attitude may be different, marked in some cases by either overt antagonism or sullen hostility.
We should examine the assumptions which underlie that hostility. Is it our underlying but unstated belief that this piece of God's earth is for only one race of people, the native Irish? From where did that assumption come? Is that what comes out if, to use the well known phrase, one scratches an Irish person hard enough?
Louis Lentin's recent excellent television programme examined Ireland's attitude to Jewish people escaping from Nazi Germany before the last war and found it wanting. It showed clearly that the closed door facing Jews here had little to do with neutrality, as claimed at the time, and much more to do with the anti Semitic tone of this country, which was contributed to by all sides of the political divide during the 1930s. Many European countries have openly addressed and then come to terms with how they behaved earlier this century towards members of the Jewish community. Sadly, Ireland has not really been one of them. As I said at the commemoration of the end of the Second World War at Islandbridge, the State owes an apology to the descendants of all those Jewish people who sought a safe haven from terror in Ireland but never got near our ports because they knew they would not be admitted.
We are not being asked today to accommodate an exceptional number of asylum seekers. In the four years up to December 1997 we have had 5,400 asylum seekers. In the same period, the Netherlands, a physically much smaller country which is about the size of Munster, has had 120,000 asylum seekers and Switzerland has had 70,000.
We should look at it from another perspective. The achievement of Irish emigrants abroad has been remarkable. In the United States and Britain in the last century, and for much of this one, the Irish built the physical infrastructure which allowed those two great countries to grow. While I deeply regret the Taoiseach is not here to lead his party, Fianna Fáil, in this debate as I am leading mine, there is no other country in which it would be more appropriate for him to be today than the United States, a country which received one million economic refugees from Ireland in the space of ten years. They were not asylum seekers but economic refugees, people who would not qualify under the Dublin Convention to stay here but would be turned away at our borders.
(Dublin West): They should have been sent back.
If the Taoiseach is able to exercise great influence today for good through the political establishments on both sides of Congress and the executive branch of government in the US, it is because the US received those one million Irish economic refugees.
Let no one think that was an easy or uncontroversial action at that time. Members may have heard of the Know Nothings, who were a group of people in the US in the 1840s who demonstrated violently against Irish and German Catholics coming into the United States. For the US Governments of the time to continue to allow Irish emigrants into the US required no less courage than is required today to allow asylum seekers into this jurisdiction. The US had the generosity and vision to allow in those seeking economic refuge from Ireland and the US has profited from their presence.
However, one cannot ignore the evidence that, having landed in the US, the Irish were engaged in some of the crueller and more objectionable racist movements in both countries. Scarcely 20 years after the Know Nothing riots against the Irish in the US, the Irish were involved in the famous New York riots of July 1863 against black people taking jobs in New York during the height of the civil war. The streets of New York were taken over and law and order broke down for four days because of substantial riots against black people led, unfortunately, by Irish people who had only landed on the shores of the US within the previous ten to 20 years.
These are the ambiguities of history with which we must come to terms. It is very important if we look back with pride to also look back with honesty. We should learn from history not to react too readily to what is said to us by our constituents. We should not be led by our constituents but should seek to lead them. That is where I find myself in disagreement with the tone and content of Deputy Callely's remarks. He is a good public representative. The feelings he articulated are genuine, but by giving voice to them without challenging them, Deputy Callely did not do a service to his constituents or to community relations.
The motion we are discussing refers to legislation being promoted in this area, the Equal Status Bill and the Employment Equality Bill. For both Bills, Members on all sides of the House owe a debt of thanks to our distinguished former colleague, Mervyn Taylor. Legislation in these areas will make a difference that is vitally important, but legislation cannot change hearts and minds, and it is in that area much more work needs to be done.
Our attitudes to travellers in particular need to change dramatically. Many people would not recognise that within society there is a minority ethnic group that suffers substantial discrimination and racism. The 21,000 travellers in Ireland each have stories to tell of discrimination and abuse. Travellers are not newcomers to the country, we cannot pretend they are recent arrivals to our shores. Yet the cultural and institutional prejudice against them in recent years has worsened rather than improved.
The campaign waged last year against the Equal Status Bill by some publicans was one example of underlying assumptions and stereotypical reactions that do not say much for our attitude towards members of the travelling community. The continuing lack of progress in identifying suitable sites for travellers' homes reflects no credit on central or local government. The tendency of certain sections of the media to present traveller-related stories in lurid and confrontational terms further contributes to hostility, but as always the media only reacts to the market that buys their papers.
Any society that in times of plenty cannot look after weak and marginalised minorities is fundamentally flawed. I have already criticised the recent budget for its regressive and divisive effects in widening income gaps between rich and poor. Minorities that suffer racism and discrimination are almost always poor. The "help the rich" budget which the Government introduced will worsen the position of all those groups in society who most need help.
Ireland is successfully integrated into the global economy. Fewer major decisions that affect our economic well-being are made exclusively here. Yet while our world view may be global, some of our less appealing attitudes such as racism are insular and increasing. The casual, often conversational and would-be humorous racism that is a feature of Irish life must be tackled and eliminated. That can best be done through school education programmes that teach children to recognise, tolerate and enjoy the diversity that is a feature of Irish and global life.
We must be able to discuss the fears and concerns of local people in a rational way. Anti-racism must not become a form of linguistic tyranny or political correctness that prevents people articulating their concerns. Even if the concerns are misplaced, they must first be expressed in order that they may be addressed. There is a risk that in our anxiety to cleanse public discourse of offensive language we will deny all except a few highly sophisticated and educated people the opportunity to say things that are on their minds in language that is deemed to be acceptable. That form of repression could lead to more unhealthy forms of expression. There is a modern superficial media obsession with language rather than meaning, with words rather than content, what I call the gaffe syndrome that is nothing more than elitism by those who have a better command of language than others. Unspoken fears fester. Linguistic correctness must not prevent people voicing fears in a respectful and bona fide way.
The Government must seriously examine the bureaucratic and administrative chaos that is likely to flow from its so-called solution to the number of asylum seekers awaiting action from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. At this stage 4,000 cases await processing, with the likelihood of immensely expensive court actions ahead if, as will happen, expulsions are contested. Would a more humane and less costly approach be to declare an amnesty towards asylum seekers in Ireland who have not been convicted of an offence since arriving here? There are precedents for such an approach, for instance, in the Department of the Environment and Local Government in regard to earlier administrative build-ups in the processing of applications.
If such an approach were adopted it might create an acceptable basis for dealing more rigorously and in an objective way with further applications apart from those already lodged. Otherwise there could be a long saga of delay, controversy, anxiety and difficulty. My suggestion might enable us to start afresh on this issue in a way that would be seen across the board as humane and would allow us to deal with the problem on a better basis.
There are no grounds for being smug about Ireland's reaction during European Year Against Racism. We must recognise that the number of people in poorer countries is increasing much more quickly than the number in richer countries and the number of local wars in poorer countries is much greater than the number of those in richer countries. The phenomenon of refugees will increase rather than decrease in the next 20 to 25 years. The concept that the prosperous countries of Europe and North America can create a wall around themselves and prevent poorer people from coming in, allowing them only to look in through electronic media, is unreal. That will not be sustained. We must come to terms with the fact that we will have a multi-cultural society and we must make a choice on how we will deal with it, whether by assimilation, integration or toleration, or a combination of all three. As a society we must face up to this issue.
One of the reasons I was anxious we would have this debate at the highest political level is that before this becomes a big problem a united political approach should be adopted to the issue of racism so that we can deal with it as a society and allow people to speak in respectful tones about the difficulties that exist — I do not deny difficulties exist — in such a way that it is not seen as political exploitation and that in all cases respect is shown for the human dignity of all the people involved.
Why did the Deputy's Government sign the aliens order in June to prevent economic migrants from coming here? It was signed by the previous Minister for Justice before leaving office. That contradicts everything Deputy Bruton said.
Dr. Upton
I agree with Deputy Bruton on, among other matters, the meaning of language and political correctness. I hope those words are echoed beyond the confines of this Chamber.
I welcome the decision of the Government to allow time for this House to send out an important signal that racism will not be tolerated and is unacceptable. It is proof of change that debate is necessary. Five years ago such a debate would not have been considered necessary. Today's debate commemorates European Year Against Racism. The motion gives the House an opportunity to take a lead on racism. Everybody has a right to live a life free from discrimination, harassment and violence. Everyone, irrespective of race, colour or creed, is entitled to dignity and respect, and it is our duty as public representatives to distinctly articulate this position. We are speaking today for the rights and dignity of people, Irish, Europeans, Americans and other citizens, of all races as well as those seeking asylum here.
I take great pleasure from the contribution the Labour Party made in drafting this motion. Racism and ethnic hatred are not quaint historical footnotes. As we continue to see in the Great Lakes region of Africa and in the former Yugoslavia, they are very much alive. Yugoslavia provides a clear example of the destructive consequences of an atmosphere that encourages racism. In that state, a relatively small number of politicians used the ethnic card and fostered racial intolerance. In a few brief years a previously stable country had collapsed into civil war and ethnic hatred. While the differences between Ireland and Yugoslavia are great, we can draw some parallels between the consequences of an atmosphere that accepts and encourages prejudice, stereotypes and intolerance.
As public representatives, we have a duty to ensure that such an atmosphere cannot develop here. This means articulating clearly that discrimination and racism are unacceptable, but we must also prevent cases of perceived injustice that can be manipulated by those using the "race" card. In 1965 Ireland was a signatory to the UN Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. As the Minister stated, we remain the only EU member state not to have ratified that convention. To emphasise our commitment to oppose all forms of racism, this Convention must be ratified as soon as possible. I welcome the Minister's remarks on that matter. Much good work has been done on racism in Europe. This is an important resource for Ireland to learn from the experiences of other countries and it allows us to contribute to the European debate on the matter.
We must recognise the excellent work done under the auspices of the European Year Against Racism, as well as by such groups as the Development Education Council. I am, however, disappointed that only £5,000 was allocated in the 1998 Estimates to continue the good work of the European Year Against Racism. However, I was encouraged by the Minister's openness to considering expanding the money that has been provided.
I applaud the inclusion of article 6A in the EU Amsterdam Treaty. This has allowed the European Union to act in the fight against racism and was an important policy aim of the Irish EU Presidency under the last Government. It has enabled the establishment of the European Observatory against Racism in Vienna. I understand this will be fully operational in the New Year and I am particularly pleased that Mervyn Taylor has been appointed as Ireland's representative. There is no better candidate for the position. I also acknowledge the important work done by the EU Consultative Commission on Racism and Xenophobia and, in particular, the contribution made by the Irish member, Professor William Duncan of Trinity College.
This debate is welcome in as much as it provides a badly needed opportunity to consider the questions that arise as a result of the increased number of asylum seekers that have arrived in Ireland in recent years. It also provides an opportunity for politicians to seek answers to the issues that have arisen and to confront some of the nonsense that has been uttered in some quarters on the matter. We need to get this question into some reasoned perspective in the context of the numbers seeking asylum and of the overall international experience. I reiterate the figures that have already been quoted during the debate. If I recall correctly, the number of refugees in Sweden or Switzerland is one in 56 of the population.
The debate is an occasion for the House to abandon the shrill language of extremes. The anxiety to grab headlines should be passed over in the interest of creating a civilised atmosphere in which the relevant challenges and questions can be discussed. However, it would be foolish not to recognise that the present problem has undesirable undertones that need to be addressed. The problem cannot be allowed to fester further. The status quo is not an option. It is a disgrace that the problem has been allowed to develop to such a degree. It is not good enough that those seeking asylum are being strung along with no decisions being made on their applications for refugee status for inordinate long periods of time. It is intolerable that the Department of Justice seems unable to address the questions that need to be confronted. The scenes earlier this year, where those seeking refugee status had to queue in the rain for hours, should not have happened.
The inability to introduce those sections of the Refugees Act 1996 that are most relevant to the resolution of the problems now festering and causing the development of a very unhealthy politics is the key factor that needs to be addressed as a route to a solution to the problem. While there is no useful purpose pretending that legal difficulties do not exist as a result of the court action now being taken on the appointment of the refugee commissioner, it is imperative that we seek solutions to the impasse rather than retreat into defensive positions that simply facilitate a continuation of the current stalemate.
It is time the Minister for Justice undertook a short, realistic and focused view of the present circumstances. If a solution is possible within the present legal framework he should act decisively to implement it. His recent letter to the UNHCR is welcome, but not enough. The key matter he has to address is the appointment of a commissioner for refugees and an appeals board or framework. As it appears the Minister is unable to do that within the present legal framework, he must amend the Act to circumvent the legal impasse that exists.
It is imperative that guarantees are given on translation supports for refugees so they can state their cases and be understood by those who make decisions on their future in this country. Confusion arising from language difficulties must be eliminated as part of the concept of a fair hearing for those who wish to state their cases to be granted asylum here. The Minister should also properly address the question of legal representation for those who wish to seek political asylum here. The letter to Hope Hanlon makes no commitment in this regard. Fair and open procedures which involve due process mean that those who have a case to state are provided with adequate legal support to do so. The Minister must go further. In the public interest and in pursuit of the common good, he must ensure that those who seek asylum have their cases heard in a cost efficient and speedy manner. The longer the delay in processing cases, the greater will be the cost of maintaining applicants by the social services. The longer the delay, the greater the opportunity for the development of political discord, the enhancement of prejudice and the development of unfounded fears about asylum seekers. Good intentions and well meaning aspirations in this area are not enough for a fair and lasting resolution to the problem. Doing what seems good and well intentioned in the short-term may lead to worse problems. We must consider the consequences of the actions and ensure our good intentions are sustained and supported by putting in place the necessary means for the desired effect.
It is time people in politics and in the services took cognisance of the fact that good and noble intentions and policies do not guarantee good results. People who do not consider the consequences of their actions, however well intentioned, are not behaving responsibly. With this in mind, there is no purpose in pretending that everyone who applies for refugee status is bona fide. Those who support the case for a civilised attitude to refugees must have the courage to accept this; otherwise progress will be hindered. There is a need for transparency and honesty on all sides if the problem is to be resolved.
It would also be a great mistake if our anxiety to find solutions to the problems we face in relation to asylum seekers led us to rush to simplistic conclusions that large numbers of Irish people are racist. I do not believe that is the case. Many asylum seekers are located in the inner city area, which has a long history of accepting people of different ethnic origins. It was the home of the Jewish community for many years. I am delighted Deputy Briscoe, who is a member of that community, is a Member of the House and people do not pay a great deal of attention to the origins of his family. The inner city has also been home to many members of the Muslim community, and there has not been any serious intolerance.
Debate adjourned.