Written Answers. - Committee on Immigration.
Liz McManus
Ceist:
430
Ms McManus
asked the
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
if, further to Parliamentary Question No. 98 of 7 May 1998 and, in particular, to point 9 of his reply, he will give an assurance that no person entering the country as a result of so-called trafficking would be debarred from applying for asylum under the terms of the proposed new legislation.
[12240/98]
Liz McManus
Ceist:
431
Ms McManus
asked the
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law
Reform, further to Parliamentary Question No. 98 of 7 May 1998 and, in particular, to point 11 of his reply, his proposed provisions to regulate the immigration of persons who do not need to come into contact with State services.
[12241/98]
Liz McManus
Ceist:
432
Ms McManus
asked the
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
if, further to Parliamentary Question No. 98 of 7 May 1998 and, in particular, to point 8 of his reply, he will provide further details of the more straightforward system he proposes for removal of persons who have no permission to be in the State.
[12242/98]
Liz McManus
Ceist:
433
Ms McManus
asked the
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law
Reform, further to Parliamentary Question No. 98 of 7 May 1998 and, in particular, to point 10 of his reply, the consultations, if any, he has held with the bodies representing workers in the health, education and social services sectors with regard to the implementation of the proposed provisions.
[12243/98]
Liz McManus
Ceist:
434
Ms McManus
asked the
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law
Reform, further to Parliamentary Question No. 98 of 7 May 1998 and, in particular, to point 6 of his reply, the criteria according to which re-admission agreements might be concluded with appropriate countries; the countries he considers to be appropriate; and the criteria which render a country appropriate.
[12244/98]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 430, 431, 432, 433 and 434 together.
The interdepartmental committee on immigration, asylum and related issues reported to the Government in February. It made a number of recommendations which were accepted by the Government and which my Department is now advancing. A summary of the committee's recommendations is set out in my reply to the Deputy's question of 7 May.
Several representatives from five Government Departments participated in the work of the committee and my Department will continue to consult with other Departments and agencies in so far as the implementation of these proposals affects their activities or requires their involvement.
In relation to the recommendation regarding the immigration of persons who do not need to come into contact with State services, many non-EU-EEA nationals are admitted to the State for, say, recreational, study or retirement purposes on the basis that they have sufficient funds to support themselves during their stay here and will not become a burden on the State. Some such persons, particularly those in relation to whom there is no visa requirement, enter the State for apparently short-term purposes but end up settling permanently.
The interdepartmental committee identified as a deficiency in our present immigration law the inability to regulate such immigration. Its proposal in this regard is under examination in my Department as part of the process of developing new immigration legislation, the aim of which is to provide a modern and effective basis for the implementation of immigration policy which, at the same time, respects the rights of the individual persons who come into contact with it.
The Deputy has expressed concern about medical aspects arising in regard to the recommendation that, when a new system of residence permits is in place, the providers of publicly funded services should notify my Department of applicants who do not have the appropriate documentation. I would like to make it clear that I do not favour and will not support any measures which would have an inhumane impact and, specifically, I do not envisage that the implementation of this recommendation will affect doctor-patient relationships.
The committee also identified deportation procedures as among the aspects of immigration law which would need to be dealt with in the new legislation. Work has commenced in my Department on the details of proposals for amending legislation. In tandem with this, work is advancing on the preparation of amendments to the Aliens Orders made under the Aliens Act, 1935, which will include provisions to make more transparent the deportation process and the steps leading up to it, pending the introduction of the new legislation. Details of the new legislation and of the amendments to the Aliens Orders will be announced in due course in the usual way.
Work is at an advanced stage in my Department on provisions for inclusion in all illegal immigrants trafficking Bill which will give effect to the recommendation that legislation be put in place to criminalise trafficking in illegal immigrants. It is intended that these measures will be introduced as soon as possible. I assure the Deputy, however, that a person found entering the country in this way would not, for that reason, be debarred from the asylum process but would have his or her claim assessed in the normal way.
My Department is currently examining the issue of the conclusion of re-admission agreements with appropriate countries. While it is too early to say how this matter will progress, my officials will be taking into account the provisions of Council recommendation of 30 November 1994 concerning a specimen bilateral re-admission agreement between a member state and a third country and Council recommendation of 24 July 1995 on the guiding principles to be followed in drawing up protocols on the implementation of re-admission agreements. Details of both these recommendations are set out in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 19 September 1996 (OJ No. C 274).
