Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I apologise for being late. I did get the papers, but I am sorry I was not here to hear the presentations.

I join others in complimenting the delegates on the work they are doing in dealing with what is probably the greatest humanitarian crisis for some 70 years. Given the numbers turning up in Europe, how do they think we can best distinguish between genuine refugees, asylum seekers and economic migrants who take huge risks to get to the borders of Europe, which is something which needs to be discouraged? How do the delegates think we can do this? In opening the doors we may, to some extent, accelerate the numbers coming across the Mediterranean, leading to more and more tragedies to add to the ones we have already seen. Is there a better approach, perhaps in line with Mr. David Cameron's suggestion that Britain take refugees from camps in neighbouring countries?

Many members of the committee have been to Lebanon and Jordan in the past few years and seen the refugee camps and the horrendous conditions in which people live. I was struck more by the plight of Palestinians. It is shame on the international community and the United Nations that Palestinian camps have been in existence since 1948. People have been living in these camps for that length of time in wholly unsuitable bombed and shelled buildings which would be classified here as dangerous. They would be secured, lest people were injured, but people are actually living in such accommodation. This highlights the inadequacies of the international community when it comes to addressing these situations. Would it be better to try to relieve some of the camps in countries such as Lebanon, Turkey and, in particular, Jordan, the stability and future viability of which are threatened by the influx of migrants?

My third question might perhaps be for the United Nations, but it involves an idea which others believe might have some merit. I do not understand why a secure and sanitised area, free from conflict, within Syria cannot be created by an international peacekeeping force, in which there would be well serviced and well managed refugee camps. This would at least cater for Syrian people within the confines of their own borders and ensure that, until such time as the conflict came to an end, there would be humanitarian aid and security. It would also mean that they would be more likely to go back into the communities of Syria. This point has been made by a number of leaders.

I have attended a couple of international conferences in the past three weeks, at one of which I had lunch with the Patriarch of Antioch.

He echoed what some of those leaders said that many of the young, strong and fit people in Syria, who are well educated, were leaving to go elsewhere and would probably never return home. Appeals have been made for them to stay because in the post-conflict era, Syria will need to be rebuilt. To some extent, the diversity and pluralism which we value will not be evident in countries like Syria and maybe Iraq because of the persecution of Christians being forced to leave. Can the delegation provide suggestions or solutions for same?

To what extent does GOAL consider the risk posed by Daish terrorists infiltrating the ranks of refugees being a problem for Europe and elsewhere in the future? Obviously, if that situation comes to pass, then public opinion will change dramatically. We should try to prevent that from happening and now is the time to do so. What assessment or monitoring procedures need to be put in place to ensure a problem does not arise? Anecdotally, the Gulf States, as the delegation will know, are not taking refugees. It has been stated that they are not taking them because to do so would pose a risk to the stability of their counties in the future. Security is an issue. Daish has said that 1,000 jihadists have deliberately left Syria as part of the exodus. I would welcome the delegates comments on that issue, which might be better informed than mine.