Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 7 Feb 2001

Vol. 165 No. 1

Referral of Protocol to Joint Committee: Motion.

Mr. Cassidy

I move:

That the proposal that Seanad Éireann approve the exercise by the State of the option, provided by Article 3 of the fourth Protocol set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam, to notify the President of the Council that it wishes to take part in the adoption and application of the following proposed measure:

a proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards on procedure in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status,

a copy of which proposed measure was laid before Seanad Éireann on 9 January 2001, be referred to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights in accordance with paragraph (1)(a)(v) of the Orders of Reference of that Committee, which shall, not later than 12 February 2001, send a message to the Dáil in the manner prescribed in Standing Order 67, and Standing Order 69(2) shall accordingly apply.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Ms Hanafin)

The motion for reference to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights relates to the exercise of the option which the State has under the provisions of the fourth protocol to the Amsterdam treaty to take part in the adoption and application of the proposal for a Council directive on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status.

The background to the motion is broadly as follows. The Treaty of Amsterdam came into operation on 1 May 1999. The House will be aware that annexed to that treaty was a protocol, also known as the fourth protocol, the effect of which is to exempt both Ireland and the United Kingdom from the provisions of Title IV of the treaty which deals with visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to the free movement of persons.

The fourth protocol, however, also allows either or both countries to opt into particular measures under specified terms and conditions. Article 3 of the protocol provides the State with a three month period to notify our wish to take part in the adoption and application of any proposal from the date such a proposal is presented to the Council, usually by the European Commission, or we may also accept a measure any time after it has been adopted. For a transitional period of five years the overwhelming majority of decisions in relation to proposals tabled must be on the basis of unanimity but, under the terms of the protocol, if, after a reasonable period, the proposed measure cannot be adopted with the United Kingdom or Ireland taking part, the other member states may go ahead with the decision in Council without their participation.

It is important for me to clarify why the matter is only now coming before the House for consideration. Although this proposal was actually sent formally to the Council by the Commission at the end of October last year the final text as communicated to the Council only became available to the Department in mid-November. Prior to considering whether the State should exercise its option under Title IV, the necessary interdepartmental consultations had to take place and then Government approval had to be sought for the exercise of the option. Although copies of the proposal for a directive were laid before both Houses on 9 January 2001, due to the intervening Christmas recess, which took up nearly half of the 12 weeks ‘opt-in' period, it is only now, on the return of both Houses, that the necessary motions can be considered.

The consequences of the presentation of this proposal by the European Commission to Council is that if the State wishes to opt into discussions from the beginning, we have until 14 February 2001 to inform the President of the Council of our intentions. Failure to opt in at this time does not prevent us from participating in Council discussions. However, we would not be able to opt in until such time as the negotiations have been concluded and the measures adopted, and our ability to influence the outcome of the discussions would be correspondingly limited. The United Kingdom has recently conveyed its decision to the Council to exercise its option in respect of the Council directive. This initiative is the first major proposal in a series of measures which are aimed at creating a common European asylum system.

The framework for the creation of a common system is already contained in the conclusions of the Tampere European Council of October 1999 and in Title IV of the EU Treaty which was inserted by the Treaty of Amsterdam. At Tampere, in particular, the Council agreed to work towards the creation of a common asylum system in the EU on the basis of the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention.

While this is the most significant proposal to arise from the Tampere Council agenda in the asylum area, we have also had proposals on the EURODAC fingerprinting regulation, a decision on a European refugee fund, and a directive on temporary protection. In the coming months proposals are expected on common reception standards for asylum seekers, the revision of the Dublin Convention and rules on the recognition and content of refugee status.

This is the third occasion on which my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, has sought the approval of both Houses for the State to exercise the option provided in the fourth protocol in respect of a proposal for an EU legal instrument in the area of asylum policy. The approval of both Houses has already been obtained for participation in discussions at EU level aimed at the adoption and application of a Council regulation concerning the establishment of "EURODAC" for the comparison of the fingerprints of applicants for asylum and certain non-nationals and a Council decision on the European refugee fund. The option has also been exercised in respect of other proposals for EU instruments mainly in the area of judicial co-operation in civil matters.

I wish to outline the main elements of this proposal for a Council directive on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status in respect of which discussions have recently commenced in a Council working party in Brussels.

The purpose of this proposal is to set out requisite measures for dealing with asylum applications in EU states as part of the creation of a common EU asylum system, based on the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention. The aim is to set down common minimum standards for dealing with asylum applications. The intention is not to require member estates to apply uniform procedures nor to oblige them to adopt common concepts and practices which they do not wish to apply. All standards for a fair and efficient procedure are laid down without prejudice to member states' discretionary power to prioritise cases on the basis of national policies.

The proposed directive essentially contains three different sets of provisions which relate to procedural guarantees, the decision-making process and the application of certain concepts and practices.

Chapter one of the proposed directive sets out the scope of the directive, including its purpose, which is to establish minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status. It also contains the main definitions.

Chapter two contains the basic principles and procedural guarantees for dealing with asylum applications. These procedural guarantees relate to all stages of the asylum procedure and are designed to ensure procedural fairness in the asylum process. The key basic principles and guarantees contained in the proposed directive include: the right of asylum applicants to have access to the asylum procedure as soon as possible; the right of each asylum applicant to remain on the territory of the member state as long as his or her application for asylum is being considered; a number of procedural guarantees which apply to every asylum applicant, including the right to be informed of the asylum procedure to be followed, the right to an interpreter, the right to a written decision and the right to appeal a first instance negative decision. All these and other key procedural guarantees are already features of the Irish asylum system and most are enshrined in the Refugee Act, 1996.

Chapter two also contains provisions on the processing of asylum applications from unaccompanied minors, the detention of applicants, the provision of resources and training for determining authorities, the right of access by UNHCR personnel to applicants and the protection of applicants' identities. While member states may retain their own national asylum systems, the intention of these provisions is to ensure that decision-making meets certain minimum requirements in the interests of developing a comprehensive common European asylum policy.

Chapter three contains common standards for the application of an admissibility procedure, including proposals for the grounds under which an application can be deemed inadmissible. As mentioned previously, each member state may decide whether to apply the admissibility concept, but if it does its national application would have to follow the common framework for all member states. Accordingly, if a member state applies an admissibility procedure to dismiss an application as inadmissible on the basis of the safe third country concept, it will have to abide by the common principles for designating a country as a safe third country as laid down in Annex I to the proposal as well as to the common requirements for applying the concept in individual cases.

Chapter four deals with substantive determination procedures and provides for a regular procedure and an accelerated procedure. While there is no obligation to apply an accelerated procedure to deal with manifestly unfounded applications, member states will have to abide by the common definitions and maximum time limit if they do so. With regard to the safe country of origin principle, which applies in some other EU states, Annex II of the proposal lays down a common approach to the designation of countries as safe following consideration of a range of information on the countries concerned.

Chapter five deals with appeals procedures and provides for an appeal to a review body such as our Refugee Appeals Tribunal. In certain circumstances a further appeal may lie to an appellate court. Chapter six contains provisions on penalties for the infringement of the national provisions adopted pursuant to the directive.

The text of the proposal generally reflects many of the key elements of Ireland's domestic asylum legislation and procedures. Our procedures encompass strict safeguards so as to guarantee fairness and provide for a fist stage determination process and an independent appeals mechanism in the case of a negative recommendation at first stage and applicants may also apply to the High Court for a judicial review of their case. The Refugee Act, 1996, also provides a statutory right to consult a solicitor, a right to interpretation and a right of access by UNHCR in relation to the asylum process.

There are also, however, some differences between Ireland's asylum procedure and those contained in the proposal, such as time limits for making appeals and for examining asylum applications and the inclusion of a third tier appeal to an appellate court on both facts and points of law, all of which will be considered in some detail during the negotiations at country working party level.

The proposal also contains concepts which are new to us, such as the safe country of origin principle, the admissibility procedure and the provision for an appeal in certain cases not to have suspensive effect. These concepts are not obligatory and, of course, all members states have discretion to decide whether to adopt concepts or practices which are not currently part of the Irish asylum system. The Government continues to be committed to meeting the State's obligations under the 1951 Geneva Convention, both by identifying and protecting genuine refugees and by more quickly dealing with those asylum applications which are clearly not from genuine asylum seekers.

As the House will be aware, the Government has allocated major additional resources to the asylum area, including 370 additional staff aimed at the speeding up of processing times in respect of asylum applications, including appeals, and to deal with the consequential increase in the level of repatriation of people whose applications for refugee status are unsuccessful. In addition, significant additional resources have been made available to the Refugee Legal Service to ensure that it can provide a comprehensive and quality legal service to asylum seekers at all stages of the asylum process.

This proposal for a council directive on minimum standards on procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status is likely to be the subject of lengthy and protracted debate at EU level, involving as it does the marrying of various member states' asylum systems. The exercise of Ireland's discretion to opt in to discussions on this proposal will initially only involve participation in those discussions at council working party level, leading, in due course, to the adoption and application of the instrument. When adopted by the council, it is likely to be a key instrument governing the grant and withdrawal of refugee status in the member states of the EU.

The conference which adopted the Amsterdam treaty amendments took note of a declaration by Ireland that it intended to exercise its right under Article 3 of the protocol to take part in the adoption of measures pursuant to Title IV of the EU treaty to the maximum extent compatible with the maintenance of the common travel area arrangements with the UK. Accordingly, the Government is of the view that it is important for Ireland to respond positively to the tabling of this proposal by exercising our option before the deadline of 14 February 2001 so that the State is fully able to participate in and influence discussions on this significant instrument from the beginning.

Mr. Connor

I welcome the fact that the Government has decided on the opt-in, at least in its discussions on this very important document, which is the first attempt by the EU to establish a legal framework governing asylum and refugee status throughout the EU. The Council of Europe, which is a human rights over-watch on the legislation enacted in the human rights area by member states, is extremely critical of every EU country and every one of the 41 member states of the Council of Europe in respect of their asylum laws and the legal codes, if any, that exist to deal with people seeking refugee and asylum status. In view of this we welcome this move.

The problem is that it will take years before an agreement is reached because many countries are not interested in it and many more have a hostile attitude towards refugees and asylum seekers and migration. In addition, many people are blind to the phenomenon of huge migrations of peoples arising from developments in communications and travel. Economic circumstances in south-eastern Europe have meant that hundreds of thousands of people have migrated northwards to western Europe. The populations of Romania and Bulgaria and the states of the former Yugoslavia are falling or static because tens of thousands of their people are migrating to the better off parts of Europe.

There is a clear onus on us in western Europe to respond much more generously than we have to date. I am old enough to remember the worst days of the Cold War when the propaganda machines of western Governments called on people in eastern Europe who were suppressed to rise up against their Governments and seek democracy. They were offered a safe haven in western Europe if they did so. Everything changed 12 years ago when the Berlin Wall fell, which was the seminal event that ended the Iron Curtain in Europe. However, there was a most ungenerous response to the plight of thousands of people in these countries. The discriminatory and racist attitude in Europe to Roma or gypsy people is almost not objected to at official level. They are a discriminated against minority in many countries of south-eastern Europe. When they move northwards to countries in western Europe they find the same discrimination they suffered in their old homeland in as bad if not worse form.

We are very concerned about the widespread reports from both EU and non-EU countries, including applicant countries, of the serious abuse and bad practice that exists where applicants for asylum and refugee status is concerned. Reports, indeed allegations, of discrimination, racist and verbal abuse, abuse of authority, dangerous methods of restraint and violence are common. There is often poor, inadequate and an unclear legal framework for dealing with applicants for refugee and asylum status in almost all EU states, and indeed in the other states I mentioned, including this State, in terms of fair and humane procedures by the State's agencies which are enforcing the law and having a clear legal code that sets out legal protection, the right of appeal, etc., for people seeking asylum or refugee status. It is a disgrace that it is almost 50 years ago since the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees was signed. That major document was signed on 28 July 1951. Nevertheless, within the borders of most countries which enthusiastically signed this document, preach about it and pay lip service to it, there is no proper legal framework that guarantees to an unfortunate asylum seeker or refugee the ordinary protection that any ordinary citizen of these States can expect. Neither is there a proper legal framework to inform the State's agencies in relation to how they should enforce the law.

Expulsions are a very controversial issue in the whole area of migration, refugees and asylum seekers. In the last two years four people have died as a result of the enforcement of expulsion orders at European airports – one died at Brussels, one at Vienna, one at Frankfurt and one at Zurich, which is not a member of the EU. Three deaths occurred at airports within the EU states, which is unacceptable. Eleven Pakistani businessmen and Moldovans were arrested here and put in prison. The treatment of these people was a clear contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 3 of the convention lays down that people in such situations must never be subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment. To have placed these people in a prison where those who have been convicted of the worst crimes in society are placed was inhumane and degrading treatment and should not have happened. In a few weeks' time, we will debate in this House the incorporation into Irish law, as part of the Good Friday Agreement, the European Convention on Human Rights. It is hardly propitious that it is against the background of such clear contravention of that convention we are having a self-congratulatory debate about the issue. Since the European Convention is a creature of the Council of Europe originally, we are the last country of the 41 member states of the Council of Europe to incorporate this requirement into Irish law because we used to say that the Irish Constitution guaranteed us greater rights than the rights guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights. It is not the first the time the State's agencies have been in contravention of Article 3, one of the most fundamental articles of that convention. It is very important that these issues are raised in a debate such as this because we will be congratulating ourselves on the incorporation of this particular convention. However, at times we have very little about which to congratulate ourselves.

The Minister of State spoke about the concept of the safe country of origin. I am very interested in this because in Europe today some countries apply this concept. Under the 1951 convention, this means that if a person is to be returned, they should not be returned where they may be subject to degrading or inhumane treatment or where their lives may be put in danger, etc. This is called refoulement. Some European countries have a policy whereby they identify certain safe countries of origin. To my knowledge, we have deported people to the Republic of the Congo, which is in the throes of a terrible civil war. It appears that we would consider that a safe country of origin. It cannot be a safe country of origin for someone who, for one reason or another, may be on the wrong side of the parties to the civil war in that country. We never properly assess what is a safe country of origin. The basic concept in the 1951 convention states that no person may be returned unless in safety and in dignity. However, we have deported people, illegal immigrants as they were called, and we were not satisfied that they were returned in safety and in dignity, nor was there satisfactory evidence that they were returned to safe countries of origin or that the country of origin to which they were returned was safe for them.

There are a number of issues this country should put in place, even before the agreement on this fourth protocol, because it will take years before there is Europe wide agreement on the matter. Given the lack of political will, I believe this debate will go on for years. We should put in place a clear set of principles that guarantees refugees or asylum seekers, particularly those who may be facing deportation proceedings, that their cases will be dealt with on an individual basis. There is clear evidence in other European countries – I am not sure about this country – that these cases of removal or return are not taken on an individual or case by case basis but several may be taken together. This is a clear infringement of human rights.

There should be a clear code of practice in relation to the right to legal advice and the rights of NGOs to have access to give advice. Currently, this advice is very patchy and it is only on an ad hoc basis that charitable organisations or non-governmental organisations which wish to give humanitarian or legal assistance to persons who find themselves with illegal status in this country in terms of their arrival on our shores have access to them. Access to places where such people are held is very often on an ad hoc basis in European countries, and we have had plenty of controversy about it in this country. NGOs in particular should have a right of access under law to inspect these places. I am referring to organisations such as Amnesty International and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, etc. These organisations should have a right under law to inspect these places to see that they comply with at least basic minimum standards. They should have a full right to interview people, give them advice and so on.

Given our history, these are initiatives the Irish Government should take. For the last 100 years we have sent many people abroad from our own shores. We called these people emigrants but that was a euphemism because many of them were economic refugees. These people were very lucky that they were well received in these countries – usually the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand – and were not, by and large, subjected to discrimination or any kind of degrading or inhumane treatment. Many other races were not so lucky, such as the unfortunate people from Africa who travelled to the American continent.

I welcome the motion which is a step forward. However, it is only the first step in what will be a long process. I appeal to the Government, in terms of its participation in the negotiations, to find a common set of rules which will apply throughout the European Union in respect of the granting of asylum and refugee status. I request that we should give a lead in this area and that we should not be like so many other states which will be reluctant, recalcitrant and show no enthusiasm for pushing forward in search of agreement.

Mr. O'Donovan

I welcome the introduction of this motion and I recommend its referral to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. The purpose of adopting the protocol to which it refers is to set out, in so far as is possible, minimum standards for dealing with asylum seekers and related matters throughout Europe, particularly within the European Union, in order that there are parallels from state to state. This is significant, particularly when one recalls that some weeks ago, in extreme weather conditions, a cargo vessel from north Africa brought a number of people into Cork. Luckily none of the people to whom I refer, who were hidden on the vessel, was drowned, due mainly to the efforts of the Garda Síochána. When these individuals were eventually brought ashore, they were treated in a humane fashion. I understand that the ship in question docked in Portugal and another European state where its passengers tried to disembark, but to no avail.

It is fair to state that we must live up to our responsibilities, but it is difficult not to envisage that the rules and regulations in individual European countries will be different. Having said that, however, the protocol is a step in the right direction. I compliment the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, and the Minister of State, Deputy Hanafin, on the huge amount of work that has been done in this area since 1997. The total influx of refugees and asylum seekers to the State in 1995 was equivalent to that of a single month in 1998. The numbers entering the country have risen dramatically in the past six years.

When the Government took office, there was no proper mechanism in place to deal with refugees and asylum seekers and only a skeleton staff was operating the relevant office. A budgetary programme was not put in place after the passing of the Refugee Act, 1996, to ensure that we could deal, in financial terms, with a problem that was obviously escalating. In addition, there was no proper appeal mechanism and, as far as I am aware, there was no right to judicial review. The Government has taken steps to deal with the problem in a very humane way. As the Minister of State indicated, the Minister provided 400 additional staff to ensure that asylum seekers' applications were processed quickly and efficiently and that this was done in a manner consistent with the terms of the United Nations Convention. There is no doubt that hiccups occurred. As already stated, the numbers increased dramatically within 18 months of the Government's coming to power and lengthy queues could be seen outside the office in Mount Street. However, steps were taken to resolve these problems.

It is easy to castigate a Government or a Minister for the way they deal with issues of this nature. To avoid a situation where refugees and asylum seekers living in Dublin or other areas might be ghettoised, they were provided with accommodation in centres throughout the country. I do not know of any county, or part thereof, where refugees and asylum seekers have not been treated humanely. They have full access to the health services, can obtain medical cards etc. In my opinion the Minister, the Department and the Government have treated them in a humane, fair and equitable manner.

I wish to place on record my concern about the unfair criticism that has been levelled against the Minister in respect of certain matters. Senator Connor referred to the cases involving Pakistani and Moldovan nationals. As I understand it, the Pakistanis were visiting Ireland on a business mission and were not seeking asylum or any sort of status. Be it right or wrong, there was obviously some confusion because their papers did not appear to be in order.

Mr. Connor

Surely it was wrong.

Mr. O'Donovan

Consequently, a regrettable situation arose. However, it would be unfair to equate these individuals with people who are genuinely seeking asylum.

The situation in respect of the Moldovans was somewhat similar. Apparently their papers did not appear to be in order to the Garda Síochána. It is regrettable that events unfolded in the way they did.

Mr. Ryan

It was regrettable and it was also disgraceful.

Mr. O'Donovan

The individuals, who were not asylum seekers, came through their experience unscathed. It would be wrong to equate both groups with genuine asylum seekers. The Moldovans were not seeking asylum, they were looking for work. It would be wrong to confuse matters. I regret that these people had unfortunate experiences. However, what happened to them has nothing to do with the protocol to which the motion refers.

The movement of people from country to country is a complex issue. Regardless of how we may strive, I do not believe we will achieve a Utopian ideal in respect of asylum seekers. In the past three to four years, since this issue came to the fore, we have taken giant steps forward. As far as some people are concerned, however, we may not have gone far enough. They often refer to Irish people who left Ireland – half of my family did so – and travelled to England or America in the 1960s. At that time, Irish citizens on land ing in England were fingerprinted, had to have a place of accommodation to which they could go and had to be able to survive on their own for a certain period. If they could not survive on their own, they were quickly sent home. We must be careful that we do not make simple comparisons with what happened to, for example, the population of Africa in the days of slavery or with the Irish who emigrated to England and America in the 1950s and 1960s.

I acknowledge that the Government and the State have a duty to deal fairly and professionally with asylum seekers. They should be given legal advice and have the right to have their applications processed. If those applications are unsuccessful, they have the right to appeal and if they are unsatisfied with the outcome they have the right to seek judicial review. Our system may not be perfect but it has come a long way. Since the Government took office, structures, mechanisms, financial supports and additional staff have been put in place. A great deal has been achieved and I reject the criticism levelled at the Government and the Minister.

I commend the motion to the House. It is a step in the right direction. As Senator Connor stated, it may take some time for its benefits to filter through and for agreement to be reached between the various European states. It should be acknowledged that Ireland is well ahead of many of its European counterparts in this area. I thank the Minister of State for her contribution. We are going in the right direction. I hope the motion will be adopted.

Dr. Henry

I wish to share time with Senators Quinn and Norris.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Dr. Henry

We support the motion. It is important that Ireland should be involved in the discussions relating to the protocol and it is vital that we indicate our intentions before 14 February.

I welcome the tone of the Minister of State's contribution. On certain occasions when the Minister has come before the House, the tone of his contributions has not been as objective as it could be. Senator Ryan and I were present on one unfortunate occasion when the Minister referred to a "glut" of refugees. It is extraordinarily important that we take as calm an approach as possible to this matter because we are discussing people who, for some reason, are seeking asylum here and we have certain obligations under the Geneva Convention.

While Senator O'Donovan naturally wanted to praise the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, it would be wrong not to mention the former Minister of State, Joan Burton, who did a great deal of work in respect of the original Refugee Act.

The important paragraph concerns proposals which are new to us. Senator Connor referred to the concept of a safe country. This is an important but difficult issue as European countries may differ in the countries they regard as safe. I hope we will take the lead on this issue in the discussions which the Minister of State may attend.

I disagree with the provision that, in certain cases, an appeal may not delay action. We in this House have always argued that appeals should always lead to the suspension of action and I hope we will continue to do so and play a leading role on this issue.

It is unfortunate that we are so hostile to strangers. The racism which seems inherent in our make-up has become a real problem. I live in the notorious Dublin 4 in which some refugees were being housed in a hotel. The area is stable yet local people objected that locating refugees would reduce the value of property. The refugees were eventually moved due to problems with planning laws. All areas have to take people and it is a pity that an area like Dublin 4—

Mr. Norris

It is to get the Abbey Theatre instead.

Dr. Henry

I agree with Senator Connor's concerns about facilities at arrival points for the questioning of asylum seekers. I was at the airport on Monday night and saw about 20 people outside the passport area. One woman had small children and the area was unsuitable for interviewing people. There did not seem to be much communication with NGOs or others. I have also seen people getting off the Belfast train being questioned on the platform at Connolly Station.

Can we have figures for the number of people turned away at ports, airports and Connolly Station? Such people's cases are not given much consideration. How many people are being turned away from ferries at French ports? French police claim that a considerable number of people are being sent back.

Like Senator Connor, I regret that nothing has happened regarding the Convention on Human Rights. I thought this legislation had to be introduced as part of the Good Friday Agreement but we do not seem to be getting anywhere with it.

Trafficking in people is becoming an appalling international problem and I hope this serious issue will be to the fore when the EU committee meets. I hope the Minister of State will attend that meeting.

Mr. Quinn

I thank Senator Henry for sharing time. I congratulate the Minister of State on her explanation and the clarity with which she expressed the need for this measure. I was interested to hear Senator Connor state that the Council of Europe was critical of 41 members precisely because there has not been clarity. This clarity can only be provided by this measure and that is why I support this motion.

I looked into the eyes of a man from eastern Europe who paid £2,000 in France for fake documentation to enable him to work in Ireland. This man told me of his sadness at leaving his wife behind and asked what he could do to get her into Europe. It reminded me of what Irish people must have gone through during famine times in the 1840s when they did anything to save themselves and their families by getting them across the Atlantic or anywhere safe.

One can only imagine the horror of the 56 people who died in that box crossing the English Channel as a result of traffickers. People are driven to such measures by horror. We are not going to solve such problems but at least we are ensuring clarity. I hope this will happen quickly and I was impressed by Senator Donovan's explanation of the figures and the fact that we were wayward because we did not have this problem until 1997. The huge increase in the numbers meant we were left behind because we were not prepared for it.

I welcome the steps being taken by the Minister of State. If nothing else it means we will be able to handle applications quickly and efficiently and hopefully reduce the number who come expecting far more than we are able, or perhaps willing, to offer. Let us ensure we in Europe get it right. Despite what the Minister for Finance is going through, we have been regarded as good Europeans. We want to make sure we are good Europeans but to do so we must ensure that we keep in line with what is expected of us by our comrades in Europe. We must provide what we owe to those who are distraught, horrified or terrorised and who will do anything to save themselves and their families. Let us ensure such people do not take the wrong steps. We must be clear and efficient in outlining the rules and regulations and how we are going to handle applications in the future. I welcome the Minister of State's comments.

Mr. Norris

I thank Senator Henry for sharing time. I welcome this measure. We have about one week to signify our intention to take part in these discussions and we must be part of those discussions. That does not mean that I wholeheartedly accept this kind of European view as we are in the process of creating fortress Europe.

I have sympathy with economic refugees and I was interested in Senator Quinn's comments as he also seemed to be moving in that direction. We in Europe are partly responsible for creating the conditions which squeeze these people out of their countries. The largest fish factory trawler in the world is owned by a man from Achill Island but it is not allowed to fish in Irish waters because of the damage it would cause. This trawler is now fishing off the west coast of Africa. People are being driven out of the contiguous countries in that region because they are no longer able to employ traditional fishing methods. This highlights how we are helping to create the pressures which drive these people out and then we describe them as economic migrants. They are part of our responsibility and we are all interdependent.

I welcome the fact that the language used in the debate has been reasonable and moderate, that is until my contribution. Language creates a context within which hatred can occur. It is important that we have a reasoned debate.

There should be some kind of "culturation" process for asylum seekers and refugees so they fit in once accepted. To remove the issue of colour from the debate, many people from eastern Europe habitually spit on the pavement. I am almost afraid to raise this issue as it could be used for racist purposes. The simple fact is that these people have not been through the same experience as us with tuberculosis. In the 1950s buses were plastered with signs asking people not to spit because of TB and diphtheria. We need to include such elements to make sure people can comfortably join this society.

Let us have common minimum standards. Let us also teach people such as the French what is meant by a safe country. On numerous occasions France has returned asylum seekers and people claiming refugee status to countries such as Algeria which were clearly unsafe and where they were subsequently imprisoned, tortured and murdered. Many European countries such as Belgium are appalling in this regard. I was born in the Belgian Congo so I take an interest in things which affect citizens of that country. Senators will remember the case some years ago of a Congolese woman in Belgium. No sane person would want to stay in the Congo given the current conditions. This woman was sat on in an aeroplane and smothered to death. Does that satisfy the minimum requirements?

There are certain anomalies in terms of the people who are punished. In many cases it is lorry drivers who are punished. I do not believe that all drivers are implicated. My brother is a long distance lorry driver and I hear it from him. For example, in Calais the French police will, by request, test lorries with a type of seismographic equipment that will detect a heartbeat or gas equipment which will tell the presence of oxygen. They can then give a clearance certificate which secures the legal interests of the lorry driver and stops them being smuggled in. We should look at that because it is not fair that a number of Irish lorry drivers have been caught in this bind. They were not involved and they did not have criminal complicity, yet the British authorities automatically imposed enormous swingeing fines. We should request that this be routine. If a lorry driver wants to get the test and to get a certificate, that should be done.

Mr. Ryan

I had difficulty getting my hands on a copy of the draft directive, although it is probably my own fault for not looking for it earlier. It is an interesting directive. Most of the major countries of the European Union are character ised by a history of colonialism. They made a mess of many of the countries of Asia and Africa in pursuit of aggrandisement which only ended in the 1950s. The consequence of that was largescale social disruption in those countries, the pillaging of their natural resources to some extent and the destruction of the national culture in many cases. Now, significant numbers of people from those countries are being told they are unwanted and that they are a threatening people who cannot be allowed into Europe which caused hardship, harm and damage to their countries over a period of 300 years. Europe has a colonial history. The ending of the political colonialism in the second half of the 20th century is not the end of Europe's obligations to the countries to whom it did such great damage. It is worth remembering that the economic powerhouse of the European Union, Germany, was waging war through north Africa not too long ago and causing enormous depredation. It is suggesting, as many countries are, that there is no longer an obligation to any of these people.

In recent times we had the ideological experiment of the IMF on eastern Europe. The unelected powers of the IMF and the World Bank got a wonderful opportunity to test out their theories on the former Soviet Union and its former satellite states. That experiment was a human disaster. Life expectancy in the countries of the former Soviet Union has reduced by perhaps one third, from perhaps 65 to 50. That has been brought about not because people who survived to 50 are dying at that age but because there has been a horrific increase in infant mortality rates because the health provisions which used to be there were destroyed at the behest of international financial agencies which insisted that those services be contracted out, collapsed and destroyed and because they failed hopelessly to recognise that there had to be institutional reform before there could be proper economic reform and a properly functioning market. We do not have market economies in most of those countries but gangster economies because institutions were not put in place to ensure that a free and fair market operated and the result has been the victimisation of the people of those countries. It is inevitable, therefore, that anybody who can will try to get out of them. It is the fault of institutions over which we have some influence that those countries are in the mess in which they find themselves. However, it is not just the fault of those institutions, as there are other issues involved.

I and my party welcome the idea of a common standard. However, one must read the literature carefully. I am intrigued by Annexe I which describes the concept in frank terms as the designation of a safe third country. It lists a number of basic standards laid down in international human rights laws, most of which are reasonable, including freedom from being imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contract and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. What is absent from the designation of a safe third country is any reference to the right of freedom of expression. The right of freedom of expression is present in the designation of safe countries of origin which mentioned that countries which are to be classified as safe countries of origin should have democratic institutions. However, that is not a requirement for a safe third country but for a safe country of origin, that is, a country from which a person could not claim asylum because it did not have democratic institutions.

The right of freedom of association with others, the right of thought, conscience and religion and the right of freedom of expression are part of the definition of a safe country of origin. For an asylum seeker to be left in a safe third country, it does not have to be a country where they can open their mouths and express an opinion about how they are being treated there. It is extraordinary that the democracies of Europe would envisage a situation in which asylum seekers could be left in what is classified as a safe third country but where they would not have a right to publicly complain about the standards under which they are being held. These are the types of things which deserve elaboration by a Department which is not given to much elaboration on its thinking or to much signs of enlightenment on how to deal with issues.

I have just heard good news about a young man of Japanese origin who has been living in Ireland since he was five and who speaks with a stronger Cork accent than I do because he grew up in Cork, unlike me. Yet he looks Japanese. He was told by an immigration official after he innocently went to work in a Japanese restaurant that he would have to go home once he finished his studies. He was at home in Cork. It was the only place he remembered. Fortunately, he has now been given the right to Irish citizenship. However, this young man, who speaks better English than Japanese, should not have been told he would have to go home because he was a child of Japanese parents who ended up in Cork. I did not speak about this before because the young man was not in a position to be certain.

One of the tragedies of our attitude to asylum is the belief of many people, both asylum seekers and those who assist them, that to speak publicly is to put their position at risk. That should not happen. People have been refused asylum here on the grounds that there was no state to persecute them because the state had collapsed, for example, in Somalia. Their first reason for refusal was that they could not stay in Ireland because they could not prove they were victims of persecution under the terms of the Geneva Convention as there was no state to persecute them because the state had collapsed. The fact that academic studies comparing asylum seekers in this country with asylum seekers in Britain who come from the same country of origin show that our refusal rates are spectacularly higher than those of Britain is an issue which has not been addressed by our policy.

There is also the eternal thorny question of enforced idleness. There are asylum seekers in every city and town who are told they can have bed and board and £15 per week pocket money, which works out at £2.20 a day. If they buy a newspaper and write a letter home, they will spend £1.50. Then people wonder about the visibility of these people on our streets when there is nothing else they can do because we say they cannot work under any circumstances. However, I have a different view. Every asylum seeker who comes into the State and who does not have family responsibilities, that is, who does not have children who need the exclusive attention of that particular person, should be told that if we can find them work, we expect them to work until their request is processed.

Not only should we allow people to work, but we should say we expect them to work. This would mean the barriers would be broken. For example, if an asylum seeker was working in Senator Quinn's business, the Irish people would know them, know they were nice, and any fears would evaporate. If their asylum application was turned down they would have friends who would react very angrily and who would say it was not fair. However, if asylum seekers are kept away and out of contact with people, in ghettos, they cannot build up that network of support and therefore can be got rid of quite quietly.

I am more than a little concerned by the language used in the document about detention of asylum seekers pending investigation of the factual situation. It is a very dangerous principle and one about which I am quite concerned.

Question put and agreed to.