Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask those in the Public Gallery, witnesses and members to ensure their mobile phones are switched off. It is not sufficient to put them on silent mode as they can interfere with the broadcasting equipment even when left in silent mode.

Today the committee will be briefed on, and will discuss, the current crisis in the Mediterranean Sea. We will also discuss European migration policy with our three witnesses. Our first witness is the Italian ambassador to Ireland, H.E. Mr. Giovanni Adorni Braccesi Chiassi. We are also joined by Mr. Peter Sutherland, Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations for Migration and International Development, and by Mr. Brian Killoran, chief executive of the Immigrant Council of Ireland. We are delighted to have the three of them here to talk to us about this very important issue.

On behalf of the committee, I express condolences on the terrible deaths and tragedies we saw in recent weeks in the Mediterranean Sea. Most European citizens do not understand how this could happen and wonder what is being done at both European and national levels to stop this human tragedy.

I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are requested to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that evidence connected only with today's proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against an official or entity either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

We have spoken to our witnesses and have agreed that the first item today will be a discussion with the Italian ambassador, H.E. Mr. Giovanni Adorni Braccesi Chiassi.

H.E. Mr. Giovanni Adorni Braccesi Chiassi:

I thank the Chairman. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the Joint Committee on European Union Affairs on the migrant crisis occurring in the southern Mediterranean and on Italian shores. I thank the committee for inviting me together with Mr. Peter Sutherland, Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations for Migration and International Development, whom I have had the opportunity to follow constantly in the media these past days. Allow me to mention the particularly pertinent article of his which appeared in The Irish Times last Saturday. Mr. Sutherland is without doubt one of the greatest experts in matters concerning migration and knows full well the multiple facets that make the current situation a two-sided coin, whereby on the one hand Europe finds itself having to confront an astonishing flow of migrants while on the other it also must realise it will require a workforce as a result of its ever-growing ageing population. Ireland is perhaps the only country in Europe that does not have this immediate preoccupation to face. I am certain Mr. Brian Killoran, chief executive of the Immigrant Council of Ireland, will provide a whole series of relevant details of interest to the committee.

I would like members to convey my thanks to the Irish Government for the decision adopted on the occasion of the EU extraordinary summit in Brussels on migration to send a fully crewed ship to the Mediterranean, in the very near future, to work alongside the personnel of Operation Triton. Members might recall that last year, at the beginning of the semester of the Italian Presidency of the Council of the European Union, I had the opportunity to brief them on the main objectives and priorities of our Presidency. I quote what I said then:

For Italy, Europe must also become a place of the future, not only as an ideal border but also as a physical and geographical Europe. On the one hand, Europe must work to stop the tragedies of victims in the Mediterranean Sea caused by the difficulties in countries of northern Africa, particularly Libya, through the Frontex operation. On the other hand, Europe must overturn its approach and demonstrate that it is an active protagonist in the economic framework and, above all, in the human context.

Just a few days before that, in the offices of the Taoiseach, on the occasion of the Italian Presidency briefing to European Movement Ireland, I illustrated the priorities of the Italian Presidency. There was a focus on a stronger role for Europe in the Mediterranean in order to prevent the increasing tragedies in that sea. However, that was at the beginning of the summer of 2014 and the problem has become much worse since then.

Italy’s geopolitical role and location make it a leading player in this struggle. Our rescue and patrolling efforts have saved thousands of lives. We witness the horror of overcrowding and decrepit trafficking vessels sinking in the Mediterranean, drowning their passengers. These boats represent only the end point of massive illegal migration flows that are run by brutal organised crime networks. When migrants are rescued from these boats, we discover they are not only from African countries such as Nigeria, Senegal, Ethiopia, Mali and Eritrea but also from Syria and Iraq, where brutal civil and religious wars are raging, and from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh, to quote only those countries with the greatest numbers of migrants.

As stated by the Italian Prime Minister, Mr. Renzi, Italy’s contempt for this unfolding drama goes beyond our role in operations. Human trafficking tramples on the values and riches that our sea has contributed to civilisation. Millennia ago, our ancestors lived amongst those shores, celebrating the diversity, richness and fullness of their identities. Italy and its culture are largely the product of these values and of the labour they spurred. My country will not turn a blind eye to this history. Italy will not allow these principles to be defeated.

Following the tragedy in September 2013 on the coast of Lampedusa, Italy initiated Operation Mare Nostrum with the support of the European Union, but bearing the bulk of the weight on its own shoulders. Operation Mare Nostrum, at a cost of over €100 million, saw Italy rescue and assist approximately 170,000 migrants, who arrived mainly from the Libyan coasts. We must not forget that, at that same time, more than 700 persons were arrested on the charge of human trafficking. Unfortunately, only one in four boats used during the crossings was destroyed.

Mare Nostrum saw units of the Italian military marine patrol the Sicilian Channel, on the edge of Libyan territorial waters. The criticism laid at Italy’s door by some political leaders of the European Union and by public opinion was that these operations so close to the coast of Libya were an incentive for migrants to leave that country. Mare Nostrum was mainly a search-and-rescue operation. It was suspended last November and replaced by Operation Triton, under the supervision of Frontex and which was designed primarily to choke off smugglers. Funding for the latter operation was tripled on the occasion of last Thursday's summit in Brussels, when it was also decided to study a series of other measures. By contrast with previous operations, both naval vessels and aircraft from several European countries will be involved in this operation. We thank our European friends and partners for this. The units involved will operate on the edge of Italian territorial waters making it more difficult for decrepit boats and dinghies to make the crossing and will act as a disincentive, in some way, to their departure. However, are we sure of this? In 2013, it is calculated that there were approximately 1,500 recorded deaths in that stretch of sea. In 2014, there were over 3,500, and at the beginning of this year there have already been over 1,500. The summer season is still ahead of us and it is the time when the greatest number of migrant crossings takes place. This is compounded by the fact that since the beginning of the year, Italy has rescued and assisted over 30,000 persons. As both Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Killoran will surely relate, the situation is very difficult and it is not easy to find solutions. Many issues must be faced by all the countries of the European Union, such as the distribution of migrants who cannot be accommodated in only some of the 28 countries of the Union. Allow me to refer to a few figures which speak for themselves. In 2014, four countries in Europe accepted the greatest number of asylum requests: Germany, approximately 200,000; Sweden, over 81,000; Italy, over 64,000; and France, over 60,000. It is surprising that a country such as Hungary, with a population of only 10 million, has accepted over 40,000 requests whereas the United Kingdom, a country with over 64 million inhabitants, has accepted just over 30,000.

I am sad and astonished that an agreement was not reached last Thursday in Brussels to relocate even 5,000 of the recently arrived migrants. If this number were to be divided equally among the 28 member states, it would mean only 172 migrants per country.

This is only one aspect of the problem. A series of extremely complex responses are being studied to best tackle it in its complexity. As committee members well know, most of the people who arrive in Italy do not intend to remain there and they state this openly in the many media interviews which committee members will have had occasion to see in recent days. I say the responses are complex because in a very complex region, Libya presents a crucial challenge. At least 90% of the migrants reaching Italian soil pass through that country. Libya is prey not only to endemic instability but also to international terrorism. Islamic State operates there, adding to the chaos of civil war.

If we are to intervene in Libya to create reception centres and shelters for migrants, and to destroy unseaworthy trafficking vessels taking care not to affect fishing boats, we can only do so under the umbrella of the United Nations and with the agreement of the Libyan authorities, which does not exist at this time. The presence yesterday in the Sicilian Channel of the Secretary General of the UN, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, with the Prime Minister, Mr. Renzi, and the EU High Representative, Mr. Mogherini, is a positive signal. Other measures could be the revision of the Dublin regulation to improve the burden-sharing of costs and responsibilities and freeze the assets derived from trafficking, in a way similar to what was done in the case of the Somali pirates.

Italy is open to any suggestion and it will not fail to shoulder its responsibilities as a country with a sea border with Libya, but it is best not to forget this is not just a national border but a European border, shared by Spain, Greece and Malta. It is therefore a problem which, given the biblical proportions of the size and the speed of the exodus of migrants, requires a response that can only be European. As stated by the Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Paolo Gentiloni, we cannot have a European emergency with an Italian answer. I thank the committee for its attention.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the ambassador for his contribution. Our next speaker is Mr. Peter Sutherland.

Mr. Peter Sutherland:

I thank the committee for this opportunity and I will begin with some preliminary observations. It is very important that we draw a distinction between refugees and economic migrants. Refugees are people who are trying to escape from persecution, as defined under the 1951 convention and supplemented by subsequent protocol. The reality is every member state of the European Union has agreed it has an obligation to accept those who seek sanctuary and who are refugees. A great number, perhaps 40%, of those who recently died in the Mediterranean were refugees. The refugees come from Syria or Eritrea in particular, Syria in the main, and they are entitled to refuge. The rest of those who cross the Mediterranean are economic migrants who seek a better life, and come from conditions of great poverty and distress but not persecution. The distinction between the two is important to bear in mind at the outset. In 2014 more than 276,000 irregular migrants crossed the Mediterranean. Irregular migrants are those who do not come with an agreed acceptance from the European Union in the first instance and most of these are simply seeking a better way of life.

I will focus on refugees in the first instance. The obligation we have, and which the European Union has a role in harmonising, has not been fulfilled by many of the member states, including Ireland, with regard to the number of refugees we have taken, for example, from Syria. A number of countries have taken significant steps to take in migrants who are refugees and they do not merely fulfil their obligation but perhaps surpass it. These include Germany, Sweden, Italy and Hungary, which have been mentioned. Germany and Sweden in particular are exceptional in terms of the numbers they have taken. The Italian contribution, and I do not say this because I am in the presence of the ambassador - I was in Rome last week with two of the Ministers from departments concerned with this - has been enormously constructive through Mare Nostrum, which was intended to save lives and succeeded in doing so. The Italian navy continues, notwithstanding the fact that Mare Nostrum no longer functions as such, to save far more lives, in fact ten times more lives, than Frontex and Triton, which are the EU mechanisms for saving lives in the Mediterranean. Italy has played a very important role.

It is important to say Italy dedicated its navy to saving lives. The recent decision by the EU Council, and the ten point plan which preceded it, and I will put this bluntly, represents more of an obsession with stopping smugglers and traffickers and, incredibly, sinking boats that might try to bring people across the Mediterranean than with saving lives. It has increased the amount of money available for the process of saving lives and for the substitution of Mare Nostrum with an EU collaboration, including Ireland, but it does not give anything as much, I believe, as the Commission would have wished.

I want to draw a distinction between the Commission and the member states. The member states have, under the treaty, an intergovernmental responsibility in this area and the responsibility and authority of the Commission is extremely limited. I am not an automatic advocate of favourable comment on the Commission, but for years it has produced papers on what could or should be done about migration and it has been ignored. A significant number of member states, and I am proud to say Ireland is not one of them, are so focused on the short-term negativism of accepting migrants that they effectively block any movement to ameliorate the position as it is today. We have seen this in the island nearest to us. The United Kingdom has great difficulties in discussing this issue, and this is shared by many others. Now we have the rising spectre of Le Pen in France and Wilders in the Netherlands. Even traditionally liberal societies such as Denmark and the Netherlands have political issues with this particular problem, which makes forward mobility on the issue difficult.

What should be done? There is no silver bullet to the issue of the huge number of people from Africa, Asia and the Middle East who might like to live in Europe. There is no simple answer of opening borders and finding a solution which everybody can immediately accept and agree.

Unfortunately, regardless of whether we like it, we have to move incrementally, step by step, and improve what we have. We must improve the numbers we are taking, both the refugees we are obliged to take and economic migrants we actually need because of the demographic challenges much of Europe, although not particularly Ireland, as the ambassador said, is facing.

We also need to agree things at European level. For example, there should be some quota distribution of refugees based on objective criteria such as GDP per capita, total population or a combination of both. There should be a fair distribution, as otherwise we will inevitably find ourselves in a position where many countries, some of which are represented here, will simply receive hundreds of thousands - I will not use terms that will inflame public debate - or very large numbers of migrants that they will simply wave through.

Second, we need joint processing of refugee applications. This is more difficult to achieve because the laws of various countries are different. We probably need to process in a different way and jointly the applications of individuals who claim to be refugees and are, therefore, escaping persecution.

Third, we have to look at whether some of this processing could take place in more remote destinations, that is, outside the European Union. For example, would it be possible for the European Union to consider establishing in countries such as Egypt a processing centre or a mechanism to process asylum applications? These applications could be shared out, rather than forcing people at enormous cost to travel across the Mediterranean in boats that are capable of sinking and resulting in the horrendous number of deaths we are seeing on a yearly basis, a multiple of the number following the sinking ofTitanicbut which receives far less publicity.

There are things that should and can be done. With others, we can do more than what we are doing. We are fortunate in Ireland that our political class, represented at this committee, does not contain the rabid, anti-immigrant minority parties evident elsewhere. That is good and understandable because, regrettably, this is a country which over a period of 100 years has provided more emigrants per capitathan most in other parts of the world.

As regards leadership, I am not suggesting Ireland has not played a constructive role, but I think it can do more, particularly in dealing with asylum seekers.

Mr. Brian Killoran:

I thank the Chairman for giving me the opportunity to address the joint committee. The Immigrant Council of Ireland is a non-profit NGO and independent law centre which has, since its inception in 2001, supported, guided and advocated for migrants and their families in navigating Ireland's immigration system.In our analysis we have continuously advocated clear, transparent, safe, and rights-based immigration policies and procedures which must be set out in legislation, well administered and allow those within the system fundamental rights such as the right to an independent appeal. We believe that overwhelmingly people from a migrant background contribute in an exceptionally positive way to Ireland and Europe and that migration is a success story which has enriched our lives and contributed to our development. This spirit of viewing migration as a human process, one that should be governed by a rights-based approach, has guided our analysis of and position on the current migrant crisis in the Mediterranean.

What is happening in the Mediterranean is, first and foremost, a humanitarian crisis, the biggest Europe has seen in decades. That men, women and children are prepared to risk their lives, often exploited and preyed upon by people smugglers and traffickers to try to cross the Mediterranean to reach Europe is testament to the desperation, lack of choices and fear that is driving them onto the boats. The composition of those seeking to enter Europe is dominated, as previous speakers said, by nationals of Syria and Eritrea, two countries with different but deep-rooted and undeniable problems.

The protection issues have been described in great detail by our colleagues in UNHCR Ireland and the Irish Refugee Council, among others. The push factors are real and endemic and, as such, will take time and a clear strategy to address. However, the pressing need is for action that will have an impact right now, that will save the lives of those on boats in the Mediterranean. What can Ireland do? As has been said, it is a multi-faceted problem which requires a multi-layered response. We believe Ireland can:

1. Stand with our European colleagues in Italy, Malta and other countries in demanding that all of Europe share responsibility for responding to this situation. If we were in their shoes, we would be seeking exactly the same thing, rightly so.

2. Use our leadership in Europe to ensure the day-to-day response in the Mediterranean is not limited to border control measures and deterrents but is a real, robust and far-reaching search and rescue operation, with the primary aim of saving lives. Ireland is contributing equipment and people to this process and, therefore, can have a say in how it is deployed.

3. Ireland must be clear in the message to Europe that this is a humanitarian crisis which needs a humanitarian response, including safe, legal and transparent channels to migrate, about which I spoke in my introduction.

There are many options available to expand legal routes for vulnerable migrants such as looking at study permission, work status and expanded, targeted family reunification processes which have been set out in great detail by our colleague organisations. I acknowledge the work of the UNHCR, the Irish Refugee Council and, at a European level, the Fundamental Rights Agency in setting out many of the existing options. To a certain extent, the thinking has been done as to how these things can be achieved. What is lacking is the will to do it.

While the problem in the Mediterranean is being fuelled in large part by those seeking international protection, in many ways, the overall issue is larger – the lack of a coherent European position on immigration. If policy formulation in Europe continues to be based on deterrents, bigger, metaphorical and real walls, perceived anti-migration sentiment among the public, a preference for economic over humanitarian considerations or for push-back policies over legal routes, we will simply see the problem recurring in different ways.

In summary, migration is a positive, permanent reality for Ireland and the European Union. We require no less than a fundamental shift in our thinking on how it is to be administered in moving from a fortress mentality that tries to use the Mediterranean as a moat to one which sees migrants as human beings, net contributors to society and people with rights. Ireland has a long and proud history of standing up when humanitarian crises strike. We appeal to the Government and the people of Ireland to do the same in the current circumstances.

I again thank the Chairman for giving me this opportunity to address the committee.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all three guests for their contributions. On behalf of the joint committee, I also thank the organisations and individuals outside the Houses who have made submissions on this issue in recent days. In particular, I thank the UNHCR for its contribution. The contributions received have been circulated to individual committee members.

Kathryn Reilly (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome all of the contributors and will keep my comments brief. Mr. Killoran asked what Ireland could do and spoke about migration being a positive and permanent reality. Perhaps the contributors might explain how we could persuade the public that migration was a positive and permanent reality. That links with Mr. Killoran's point about ensuring the responsibility to accept migrants is shared among European countries. For example, many will have seen what happened in the Mediterranean and thought it was a tragedy. They are sympathetic and appalled, but they might not associate it with a humanitarian crisis.

When it comes to the question of accepting migrants they would perhaps shirk away and say, "Maybe not at my door". How do we persuade the public in a positive way that we should accept migrants? This communication is important because it is the public who ultimately put pressure on political leaders to ensure that migration is viewed in a positive light and that we should actively share the responsibility. This leads to consideration of a quota system as suggested by Mr. Sutherland. It cuts out that short-term negativism that he mentioned. How could migration be integrated into Ireland's future development policies and strategies?

Seán Kyne (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the ambassador, Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Killoran to the meeting. I acknowledge the difficulties faced by the ambassador's country and also the significant role it plays and the measures it has implemented to tackle the very pressing humanitarian crisis on its shores. All countries in the European Union must participate and assist Italy in taking these measures. One cannot blame migrants or refugees for wishing to find a better life. As Mr. Sutherland said we have a history of seeking better lives for ourselves and we must acknowledge that people regard the European Union as an attractive destination. No one can blame anyone for wanting to better his or her life. Those of us in politics try to encourage people to find ways of bettering their lives.

Every country has a responsibility. Ireland has a target of providing 0.7% GDP for overseas aid. While we have maintained the monetary supports we have not quite reached the target of 0.7% but there is an onus on countries to continue to support overseas aid and to continue to improve the economic lives of those countries where migration begins. This would be a means of limiting the desire of people to leave those countries. We must acknowledge that the unrest in Syria and other places has added to the humanitarian crisis and the resulting movement of people.

However, we cannot have an open-door migration policy. Mr. Sutherland referred to the UK and UKIP and the other extreme right-wing parties which are using immigration as a means to stir up fears. They talk about the shortage of housing because immigrants are being housed or the shortage of jobs because immigrants are getting jobs. We see the concern in the UK which might explain its reluctance to take in more people. I agree with Senator Reilly about how that message should be sold. If one can argue that one's country cannot afford to do things because we have to spend the money on other people, that is the politics of this issue.

The ambassador referred to Germany and Sweden in particular. Germany has a need for workers as its population ages. Does this type of economic rationale explain why Germany is taking in more people? If a country needs more workers will it open its doors to immigrants? I refer to the time of the Celtic tiger in this country when we were regarded as an attractive country and there was an influx of people. I acknowledge that this country and all countries in the European Union need to do more to deal with this crisis. It cannot be left on the shoulders of one country. I commend Italy on the role it has played over the past months.

Colm Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests for their attendance and for their presentations. I apologise that I had to leave the meeting as a vote was called in the Seanad. Mr. Brian Killoran referred to the lack of a coherent EU immigration policy. I refer to my experience of having served in the European Parliament and on its foreign affairs committee and human rights sub-committee. Would he agree that there is also a lack of a coherent EU policy on the sale of arms and munitions? Destabilisation in areas has been fuelled to an extent by the lack of a long-term European Union policy. Some countries in Europe have technically contributed to the crisis because of the lack of an overall policy on what is being sold to these regions. This will be a long-term problem because of destabilisation.

In 2008 I visited refugee camps in the Sudanese border area where very little has changed since that time and likewise in Gaza where very little has changed over 20 years. Will the same scenario occur with regard to the current crisis over the next 20 years? Is a more coherent, comprehensive EU policy required now so that we do not look back in five years' time and ask why this was not done five years ago? What is the ambassador's view? How does Ireland as a small country influence European Union policy to come up with a more comprehensive solution to this issue? Recent decisions do not convince me that this is being dealt with in a comprehensive way. Many other issues which we seem to have ignored need to be dealt with as well as the migration issue.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like my colleague, Deputy Kyne, I acknowledge the work of the Italian Government and the Italian people in their efforts to deal with the front-end of this crisis. It is really disappointing that the European Union has not been able to address this issue satisfactorily.

Among the values set by the European Union is that it should provide leadership. I do not think it is appropriate for people to be overly concerned about UKIP or anybody else. Mr. Sutherland has identified the different places where that right-wing agenda is emerging. Some of the larger countries, as well as smaller countries like Ireland, will need to take a leadership role in addressing the concerns and bringing others with them and doing so on the basis of our shared values. This is a crisis on a large scale.

Mr. Sutherland suggested the introduction of a fair quota system with a base established in Egypt. From Mr. Sutherland's insight, how close or how far are we from reaching that kind of a solution? He has identified some of the log jams and some of the potential impediments that need to be overcome. What would be his advice to this committee, to our representatives who are dealing with this crisis or to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade? What more can we do? It is nice to have a conversation among ourselves and all agree that the situation is terrible. What can we do in our small way as a committee of the Irish Parliament to advance the case of providing some dignity for these people who are in a dreadful situation?

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests for their attendance.

It is an important subject and I congratulate the Chairman on having the vision to have this discussion now.

I agree with the views expressed by my colleagues and our guests. Italy should not be expected to handle what is essentially a European problem. Every country has a responsibility, whether we like it and regardless of whether some countries have xenophobic tendencies, not for the first time over the course of history. This must be taken on board. Also, each country must focus on its own responsibilities, what it is expected to do in a humanitarian crisis and whether it should do nothing, wash its hands of the matter and opt out. That appears to be the case in some instances.

We must encourage our colleagues across Europe, but we must also show example. We must encourage our colleagues in Europe to recognise that people are in a desperate position, between the proverbial rock and a hard place. It is not only an economic problem but a true refugee problem. All of us as public representatives have dealt with refugees from these regions in the past ten to 20 years and some desperate cases have been brought to our attention. It would be really embarrassing if a humanitarian Europe were not to open its eyes and recognise that it has responsibilities in dealing with this issue.

I agree with Mr. Sutherland that a base must be established where there can be some order in the way this issue is tackled. People's lives are being put at risk as a result of being controlled and handled by traffickers who put them on the high seas. There is no attempt to deal with the issue other than to ensure the boats are taken from the traffickers or that no boats will be available in the future. That is a load of nonsense. It is irresponsible of European countries to even think in that fashion. We all have an obligation which must be spread across Europe and it must be met in the short rather than the longer term. Enough discussions have taken place.

Reference has been made to those countries that are reluctant to accept what they consider to be economic immigrants. They never speak about the advantage of having extra people in their countries. It is something they should consider. Every country has benefited in one way or another from an influx of people. There are different age profiles and so forth. In particular, in the case of women from countries that obviously have bad human rights records who land in Europe, it should be natural to assume that they come with good reason. They are afraid to remain in these countries where their quality of life is appalling. They may not have been directly and daily under threat, but they can certainly see a threat to their families in the future and know what they have lived through themselves. Some of the things they have lived through are not repeatable, as we know from what they have told us. We must focus on these issues.

I am also concerned about euroscepticism and the role eurosceptics are playing in the xenophobic theme that is emerging. It is dangerous and Europe must address it. As the Chairman knows, we have discussed this issue previously and intend to deal with it in a report to the committee. It is related to this subject. If Europe does not address it, with each country in Europe taking on its own respective share of responsibilities, the Europe we envisaged and the Europe we saw evolve in the past 65 years or so will disappear. If that happens, there will be consequences and they will not be nice.

We should never be surprised when people wish to improve their way of life. I recall meeting an American congressman who was very traditional and had the idea of building a wall at the border to keep out certain nationalities to the south of the United States. A group of us tried to explain to him that one could not do this. If there is a high standard of living on one side of a barrier, be it visible or a line on a map, people will automatically want to go there. That is the nature of the individual and he or she cannot be blamed for this. We must recognise that there are people in vulnerable positions outside the borders of Europe and it should not be left to one or two countries to deal with the problem. We should give them support and recognise our responsibilities.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the ambassador. I also welcome Mr. Sutherland back to the Oireachtas which has changed a little since he was last here. I was a Member of the Oireachtas when he was Attorney General and a former very successful European Commissioner. I also welcome Mr. Killoran.

The issue is very serious. I noted Mr. Sutherland's point in comparing it with what happened to Titanicand the international reaction to that event. There has not been the same reaction on this occasion. People are escaping from Africa and trying to get some support to remain alive. At the Interparliamentary Conference on the Common Foreign and Security Policy held in Rome last November my colleague, Senator Mark Daly, made the point that the downscaling of the scheme in place at the time to the new European scheme was a disaster. That is a fact. The Italian Government and people saved 100,000 shipwrecked refugees, an incredible number, and had a tremendous operation in place. It involved the use of helicopters, naval vessels, five aircraft, two submarines and 900 personnel. It should be reinstated but supported by the European Union and the American Government.

The American Government has an involvement because of the destabilisation of Libya and the Middle East through the action taken in Iraq by the American and British Governments. They had no solution, just a wish to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Overall, the situation in the region has been seriously destabilised and we must secure the lives of the maximum number of people. Mr. Sutherland has spoken strongly and very well about how we should do this and I am very impressed by his statements and presence here. I hope he will be successful. An international effort is required. It is not just the Italian Government that carries this responsibility; one country cannot carry it. If it is possible to provide ships to rescue people who are in distress, it would be better than leaving them left in the middle of the high seas and trying to rescue them at that point.

I thank the Chairman for organising this meeting and the delegates for attending to discuss the issue. Frankly, we feel rather helpless. We look back to when the coffin ships were leaving Ireland and foundering. We were delighted when those who reached the shores of Canada and the United States were given refuge. From a humanitarian point of view, we should have the same feeling for the people from Africa that was shown for the people from Ireland who were in distress and fleeing hunger and starvation in Ireland.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is an important point which we should remember.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the delegates. The last speaker referred to the coffin ships from our history. I never thought we would experience this in the world we are living in today, but, unfortunately, it is happening in the Mediterranean.

We are approaching the summer season. Does the ambassador believe the ten point plan being put forward is sufficient? I presume a huge number of people will try to cross the Mediterranean. Does he believe the plan the European Union is putting together will work? I imagine the debate we are having this morning is being replicated at the meeting of European leaders. I am sure there was huge support for Italy and the work it was doing, as well as for Greece and other Mediterranean countries. That support is being articulated, but the issue concerns following through on it.

I do not know whether there is the stomach for it if we are talking about huge numbers of refugees coming to Ireland. I think Sweden's population is double that of Ireland. A total of 81,000 people were admitted to Sweden in 2014. I do not see any politician in this room suggesting that Ireland takes half that number. We are articulating a view emotionally that we want to do more and I have no doubt that we will but the reality is that we will not do a huge amount. We can see the real attitude of the Irish towards refugees through the direct provision centres. People have been in the system for the past ten years. They are still trying to get through the system from one end to the other and are living in appalling conditions with no recognition of their culture or different backgrounds. We say we will take on more but are we going to put them through the same hoops and difficulties? Yes, we are. It is very easy for us to say we want Europe to do more but it is different when it comes to us. Under the Dublin regulation, the EU member state which was first entered by an asylum seeker is responsible for processing their application. Does the ambassador agree that this regulation is in need of major updating as it places major pressures on southern European countries? Is he aware of any proposals concerning it?

In respect of a humanitarian, policing or border control response, which countries suggest that there is a "pull" factor if we save people's lives? This is the "Fortress Europe" nonsense about pulling back and how we will not encourage them by going out to save them. Where does this come from? The ambassador mentioned a number of countries. People wonder whether it is the Germans or French. The French have taken in huge numbers. It is not a trick question but where does this idea come from?

I presume there will be a need for a UN resolution about blowing up smugglers' boats. Will that happen? How will they distinguish between a fisherman's boat and a rusty wreck that they will push out to sea? It is a nonsense. It was best summed up by the British Prime Minister, David Cameron. In an interview, he said that the UK would send in the Royal Navy to patrol the seas but would bring them back to Malta because that is the nearest country. The UK had no responsibility in that regard. We will all congratulate Italy for the work it is doing and the lives it is saving but it is Italy, Greece and Portugal's problem. This is the hypocrisy of it. There is a smattering of that here this morning. We are all concerned but the next step is too difficult to swallow.

In respect of the point that we do not have right-wing parties in Ireland, there are racists in Ireland. I do not know how many doors I have knocked on where I have heard "I'm not racist but...", which is part of the response to what we are doing in respect of people in direct provision. I know it sounds like a speech but I am just expressing the frustration that is there. I do not think we are coming up with the answers. A total of 50 million people have been displaced. Many European countries were cheerleaders for regime change in many of the countries whose inhabitants are coming to Europe. They want to settle. We have wrecked their countries. We have encouraged, trained and bombed. People want to come to Europe and we say that we want them to stay in their devastated countries. It is wrong.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are quite a few questions to answer so I suggest we take it in the same order in which we took the original contributions so we will start off with the ambassador. Perhaps the ambassador could answer the questions he thinks are most relevant and we will see where we get to. Hopefully, all of the questions will be covered.

H.E. Mr. Giovanni Adorni Braccesi Chiassi:

As I mentioned previously, it is a very complex problem. In 2011, we were aware that helping the Libyan Arab spring might have caused a lot of problems. We have known the reality of Libya for decades. Libya was an apparently stable country under Colonel Gaddafi but following the destruction of our consulate-general in Benghazi a few years ago, we became aware that there was a very big difference between different tribes in Libya. We were very sceptical about the NATO intervention in Libya. Our impression was that first, there was no "plan B" if something went wrong. Second, it was a very difficult situation because Libya is not a united country. The result is before our eyes.

Something is happening because our prime minister was able to call for a European summit at very short notice. Extraordinary summits are very rare in Europe and have happened on only a few occasions. It was accepted that this is something positive. Of course, it is such a complex problem, as was highlighted by Mr. Sutherland, there are political refugees and those looking for jobs and there is the role of national public opinion. There are many people in Italy who are not happy at all with the large numbers of refugees and who want to send them back to Libya, which is not a solution. The UN Secretary General has come to see what is going on and the way the operation is going ahead. Measures are being undertaken to set up camps in Egypt and on the borders of Libya and other African countries to examine the demands. I know that Morocco and Spain and Morocco and Senegal have done quite a good job in this regard to exert better control over those people.

The Dublin regulation must be reviewed because it does not make sense that the countries which first receive all those people must take them all. The burden must be shared. A process is underway that must also take public opinion into consideration but I think there is a change in public opinion. These tragedies had been happening for months but suddenly everyone woke up a few days ago. We must maintain a significant focus. It cannot be a case of focusing on one thing until a new crisis comes along and we forget the first thing and have to wait for another boat with hundreds of people to sink. There is a first response and the issue is very complex. We would like to see a government installed in Libya with which we can talk.

That is one of the big tasks for the United Nations and the special representative and we will do our best. In Italy we have a special sensibility due in part to the fact that it is a country which, like Ireland, has exported its people for decades or centuries. It is a complex phenomenon. Italians are coming to Ireland because Italy is facing a difficult economic problem. We know that the people arriving in Italy do not want to stay there because they will not find jobs and many of them have relatives in France or Germany. We can try to keep them, but they will do everything they can to reach these countries. What is going to happen then? Some of them are going to be accepted, while the police will bring others back to Italy. It is not the solution, but there is more sensibility and concern about this issue at European level. Our Prime Minister who is facing a difficult internal problem in introducing reforms while leading a government that enjoys only a slight majority is keeping it in focus and will try to convince our European partners to share the burden.

Mr. Peter Sutherland:

I will begin by addressing the points made by Deputy Seán Crowe because they are relevant to the broader debate. The ten point plan and the conclusions of the European Council will not work as they do not go far enough and are not clear enough. They are an attempt to stem the flow of migrants in a way that, in the case of activities such as sinking boats, will require a resolution of the UN Security Council. Libya has made it clear that it will not accept any intervention in its territory. That country is in major political turmoil, but in so far as it is possible to ascertain its Government's position, it is understandably opposed to any such external intervention. I have issued a statement, with the heads of the UNHCR and the IOM, indicating that this is not an adequate response to a very serious problem. I am afraid that is the reality.

With regard to the fact that people are kept in camps for prolonged periods, this is unacceptable. The reason is processing is not carried out at a sufficiently rapid pace and often is focused on particular countries which have to bear the greatest burden without help from others. Front-line states, including Italy, are left to process everybody because the country of first landing is obliged to provide refuge for the asylum seeker. Once processing has been completed and the individual is certified as a refugee, that is, somebody who is avoiding persecution and cannot be sent back, he or she becomes part of the same economic community as the rest of us, with all of the rights of travel, etc., that go with it. Something has to be done about this in terms of the sharing of responsibility. The question arises as to whether we will have that sharing of responsibility instead of people in the north of Europe claiming it is not their problem simply because refugees are landing on Lampedusa rather than Ireland's Eye. I understand the argument that it is easy to say but not as easy to do, but the fact is that others are doing it. Even allowing for population differences with Germany and Sweden, the figures for these countries are telling in comparison to those for Ireland. Last year the Netherlands took in 10,620 refugees. Denmark, with a population comparable to that of Ireland, took in 3,360 refugees. We would not be dealing with hundreds of thousands of refugees, which I recognise would create massive political uproar, if we were to take our fair share of what was required. Even Malta took in 1,610 refugees.

A number of members asked how we could convince people this was necessary or desirable. The only way they can be convinced is by articulating the facts. Britain, where I spend my time, has failed to do this because the subject is virtually taboo among a political class which fears that it will translate into lost votes at the general election. The issue was not explained, even though the British Department of Economic Affairs had clearly established that the net contribution of migrants was significantly positive in economic terms and that much more was paid in tax than what was paid out in benefits. There are also more entrepreneurs and innovators among the immigrant community than among the national community. In this country attention could be drawn to the fact that during the period of severe economic crisis post-2008 we still received large numbers of immigrants, particularly from central and eastern Europe. They found jobs that were available to Irish people but which were not being taken up. They were badly needed. In this and other cities in Ireland one can be served by excellent immigrants who are working in restaurants or our homes. The evidence indicates that, while there was emigration during that period, there was also a significant flow of immigration. Immigrants were generally welcomed. I have never heard negative comments about the immigrant community. Perhaps there are negative comments, but I think immigrants make a great contribution to Irish life.

Germany has a need for migrants. It faces a demographic problem we do not have. Europe will require an additional 60 million workers between now and 2050 to maintain the current worker-retiree balance. To achieve this figure, it will need to attract millions of immigrants annually rather than the relatively paltry numbers currently immigrating. Perhaps it is less than generous to say Germany is motivated more by filling its demographic hole than by doing the right thing. There is a fair amount of doing the right thing in Germany's policies, as well as in what is being done in Sweden, Italy, Spain and France. There are differences in attitude, but some countries are doing the right thing. The issue has been elevated in Germany to a level of political discourse that makes me wonder about what is happening in other countries.

For example, migration was one of the main subjects at this year's annual meeting of all German ambassadors. I was at the meeting. It has been elevated to the highest level. The government responsibility for migration and development, which are inextricably linked, is organised in a way that requires interdepartmental structures. In Germany that is done under the Chancellor. There is a strong argument for the department in charge not to be a silo but an intergovernmental group. In most countries the business of migration is handled by the department of justice, home affairs, homeland security or the interior, as it is described in many European countries. We need some structure which brings together development, foreign affairs and different aspects, including - this is important - homeland security or border control. to get a proper policy mix. I am not saying there is none here, I do not know.

The point is made that part of the problem is of our own making, that is, of some European countries or, one might say, Europe as a whole, the United States or others, in terms of the diabolical situation in some of the north African countries, including Libya and Syria. Who is responsible for that and what role can we play? I am not going to get into an issue about whether Ireland can play any role at all having regard to its traditional positions in matters of foreign affairs on these issues and how it does it through the United Nations or whatever. That is a big issue which would require a debate in itself involving issues such as arms sales etc., which are outside the general questions we have been asked.

In conclusion, the European situation is required to go much further than it has done in the recent conclusions. The Commission is about to have another discussion which it is hoped will bring forward another series of proposals on this issue. The Dublin regulation is inadequate and needs to be reviewed and refined. It has to include explicit responsibilities being shared in the European Union. It may be difficult to do that as the committee has suggested but that is what parliamentarians are for. We have to do it. It is easy to say that I am talking from outside and not dealing with political realities. Maybe I am not but this is a political reality that is not going away.

Mr. Brian Killoran:

It is fair to say that while Ireland does not have an organised right-wing sentiment or party in respect of racism and xenophobia, I agree with Deputy Crowe that there are elements which one might call a disorganised right and there are certain opinions which we see in our anti-racism work. Although we have weathered a difficult economic situation, the opinions around migration remain very positive. There are two main ways to impress on the public the benefits of migration in general. From a cultural point of view, migration is a success story for Ireland and a sign of a healthy country. We have come to a stage where we celebrate our new citizens through the citizenship ceremonies. This is a massively positive manifestation of how we see the changing diversity in Ireland.

The biggest gap between facts and public opinion is on matters such as the economic benefits of migration and, as Mr. Sutherland set out succinctly, these are proven again and again in Ireland and across Europe through deep and exhaustive research and campaigning by organisations such as ours. Whether that is translated into public opinion is questionable. Much of the time we repeat the message but the Government needs to take that on board too and say it is not that we do not talk about migration but that we talk about it in a positive way and show the benefits. It is really important to impress on people that the complexities of immigration are very difficult for lay people to get their heads around.

It is important to recognise that in the present situation many of those we talk about are programme refugees, not necessarily people coming into the asylum process here to spend possibly years going through a determination process and ending up in direct provision and so on. Programme refugees are entitled to work. They can use their skills and abilities to contribute to Irish society, the economy and our development. Many people do not recognise that when they consider immigration status. They do not know the difference between someone with student status or in the asylum process and someone with refugee status. It is important to be very clear about how Ireland would receive people in these circumstances.

There is also a question of values. Even though we have gone through economic difficulty, we must not lose our humanity, our long and strong tradition on humanitarian issues, and we must show that we will do what is necessary and play our part, which will be proportionate. No one is saying it has to be disproportionate. Some of the questioners mentioned that there cannot be an open door policy. No one in our contributions, or those of any organisations that talk about immigration here or at European level, is talking about open door policies. We are talking about legal channels that allow people a path to a very secure situation. Those can vary. They can be student status, work permit status or, for example, the Syrian humanitarian access programme whereby family members of Syrian nationals were allowed to apply to come to Ireland. The time and numbers were quite limited. Approximately 110 people were granted access. That is an example of using the discretion within the immigration system to come up with a way to allow people a clear channel to enter the country. We refused maybe two thirds of applications for economic reasons, for the most part because the people did not have enough finance to support themselves. That puts an economic lens on a humanitarian issue but it is an example of the type of thing we can do. There is no reason a scheme such as that could not be revisited or expanded. We have the ability to do that.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the committee, I thank all our guests for coming in today and giving us their thoughts. I will ask our officials to draft a paper on today’s proceedings with some of today’s conclusions-----

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That will not be easy.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It will not be easy but it can be done. As Senator Leyden knows, our officials are very good. They will circulate that in advance of next week’s meeting for approval then. We will then send it to the Taoiseach. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I thank all our guests for their contributions today.