Peter Power (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on one of the most important Bills to come before the House for some time, perhaps one of the most important Bills we will deal with in this Dáil term. I compliment the Minister, the Minister of State and their officials who have worked long and hard on producing the proposal in legislative form.

Ireland has seen two sides of this issue. In the 19th and 20th centuries we experienced much forced emigration with all its social consequences. In the past ten or 15 years we have seen the complete opposite with immigration into the country. We are in a unique position to know both sides of the one coin. In the 1950s, 1960s and indeed in the dark days of the mid-1980s when tens of thousands of people left the country it would have been unthinkable that a few short years later the House would be discussing such comprehensive legislation to deal with immigration as distinct from emigration. It is a sign of the changing Ireland.

Practically one in ten people living here is classed as a non-Irish national, either from European countries or from farther afield outside the EEA. That is a startling statistic especially given that it has come from a base of close to 0% ten or 15 years ago. We have been playing catch-up and our policy in the area has been totally response-led, reacting to the influx in recent years. It is therefore important to have a full and complete debate at this stage.

Before discussing the details of the Bill it is vital to recognise and state clearly that the vast majority of people who have come here legally at our invitation or who have stayed here after going through our due process are very welcome. It is important to say this in the House to the representative organisations and the people they represent. They are welcome here once they are here legally. In some cases they have made an enormous contribution to the country culturally, educationally and, for the most part, economically. They have also made a great contribution to our social services, with many such people working in our health care sector. It is now important to take the next step and adopt a much more joined up view as to where we are as a country and as to whom we want in this country. It is important to say this honestly because we have the power and responsibility to dictate as a country, subject to our international obligations, who should and should not be in the country. That is an important point to recognise before beginning the debate.

There are some important realities we need to face up to before we discuss the legislation. The current system has been abused, in some cases systematically, not just by the applicants, the non-Irish nationals, but also by people bringing cases on their behalf. Some people representing non-Irish nationals applying for asylum and residency are using the system as a money-making exercise. The Bill needs to tackle that issue and I believe it lays out the framework to do so. It is important to realise that 90% of applications for either residency or asylum have no merit and are unfounded. We need to face up to that reality and have a system to deal with those cases which have no merit or are vexatious. We need to deal with them quickly and expeditiously subject to the concepts of fairness and due process. The existing system, which has merely responded to the phenomenon of the influx in recent years, is a recipe for abuse.

There is a significant difference regarding the approach that ought to be taken to deal with the issue of how to legislate and introduce systems to address it, mainly between the Government and the Labour Party. Last week Deputy Rabbitte articulated in great detail his party's approach. As I understand it, he believes the legislation should incorporate statements of policy as to how we organise our systems and decide cases, whereas the Bill sets out to delegate authority and power in this area to the Minister. Leaving aside the legal debate as to whether it is constitutionally permissible to delegate those powers to the Minister — although it is an important point — there is also the issue of whether it is the way to proceed in this area. It begs the question as to whether policy in every aspect of government needs to be enshrined in legislation. I believe emphatically that is not the case.

I fundamentally disagree with the concept that in order for a government to operate a policy in any area of government endeavour, such policy needs to be enshrined in legislation. However, that is the position of the Labour Party as articulated in great detail by Deputy Rabbitte. I simply disagree because it suggests that every action of Government in making policy, including economic policy and foreign policy, needs to have a legislative base in that the policy itself is in the legislation. That is a recipe for disaster. Last week, Deputy Rabbitte quoted a long list of legal cases concerning the legal requirement to have such policy enshrined in legislation. I respectfully suggest, however, that he has confused two important issues. One is the requirement, with which I agree, to have some element of guiding principles in the legislation. However, that issue is confused with the suggestion that the legislation must have policy statements set out in it. I disagree with that because the logical conclusion of that position is that every time the Government seeks to change policy, a new immigration Bill must be introduced. That is a flawed concept, yet it is the logical conclusion of the argument put forward last week by Deputy Rabbitte. It is an unworkable way of managing our affairs, which is far too rigid and inflexible. However, this is an evolving area, not just here but also in other countries, and as economic and social conditions change, policy must change to reflect that. That is why we are introducing this legislation.

Deputy Rabbitte made the case that the Bill is devoid of guiding principles but I respectfully disagree with him on that point. Although the Bill delegates substantial powers to the Minister to make regulations and introduce an administrative framework, it can only be done in accordance with section 127(5), which makes it clear that in specifying categories of permission under the Bill, the Minister shall have regard to certain guiding principles. These include "trade, commercial, tourist, cultural, educational or scientific" contributions an applicant can make, in addition to the "facilitation of the provision of skills and expertise in the industrial, commercial, business, educational, scientific, cultural or administrative fields". Section 127(5) also refers to "the pursuit by the State of the maximum social, cultural and economic benefits" arising from immigration, as well as the "enrichment and strengthening of the cultural and social fabric of the State", and the "promotion of the successful integration of long-term residents into the State". As regards the latter point, we have taken an advanced view with the appointment of a separate Minister with responsibility for integration. Section 127(5) also refers to the "maintenance and protection of ... health", the "promotion of international understanding" and respect for our international obligations, the "fostering and development" of links between nations, specifically Ireland and Britain, the "protection of the socio-economic fabric of the State", and the "protection of the security of the State". If the aforementioned matters are not guiding principles or even a policy framework, I do not know what is. Consequently, I must respectfully say that Deputy Rabbitte's position is simply incorrect. First, it is clear that the Government has the necessary power. Second, the Government should delegate that power to the Minister. Third, the legislation does have guiding principles to inform the Minister as to how he should exercise that power. In this respect therefore I cannot agree with the long proposition made by Deputy Rabbitte in the House last week.

Immigration policy both here and abroad is evolving all the time. Proof of this fact can be seen in the seismic changes in our demographics over the past ten years. The suggestion is that we should amend our legislation every time such changes occur but that is an unsound principle.

The Bill has been welcomed because it attempts to codify the law in this area. It has been criticised, however, for restricting access to justice by applicants, be they asylum seekers or others applying for long-term residency or protection. It is said that in some shape or form the Bill does not protect such people but I would have to disagree with that view. The existing system grants too many protections. We must respect our obligations under international obligations, including UN and European conventions on human rights. Our processes go much further than that, however, and they allow our system to be abused. The net result is that 90% of such cases are unfounded and have no merit. There is something inherently wrong with a system that allows that failure rate to be indulged in by the State, the Department, the courts and administrative tribunals. It can often take years to decide that a case has no merit, and that is wrong. For that reason I welcome the simple concept that underpins the legislation — that is, that people are either legally resident in the State or not. If they are not here with the permission of the State they are legally obliged to leave and that removal process should be streamlined. I firmly believe in that and the Minister is absolutely right in the manner in which he has addressed the issue. Non-nationals who are legally resident here operate under a simple, streamlined and one-form application process whereby they apply for permission to be in the State. Such applications are processed and permission is either granted or not. If applicants do not agree with the way in which the process has been carried out and feel they have not received due process or fair procedure, they still have right of access to the courts in each and every case. That is a fair and efficient way of dealing with the system and I compliment the Minister on the manner in which he has introduced it.

Many groups have made representations concerning this Bill and they should be heard. As Chairman of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, I feel it is important that, before we discuss the detail of the legislation on Committee Stage, such groups should be invited to attend the committee and afforded an opportunity to express their views, which can then be heard and taken on board. The Minister has signalled that he is open to reasonable amendments to the Bill and I welcome his position in that regard.

I compliment the Refugee Council of Ireland, the Immigrant Council of Ireland and other advocate groups in this area. They provide a good service for applicants.

While many issues are dealt with in the legislation, I want to concentrate on whether we have got the overall mix right. Policy in this legislative context must — to use a much abused phrase — be joined up with other policies in order to deal with issues such as family reunification, children's rights, human trafficking and sexual exploitation. In that way it will not just be about who gets in or who does not, but will also deal with supports for people who are here at the invitation of the State. That overriding principle of responsibility must be outlined. Every state has that unique power to decide who is allowed enter its jurisdiction. That should not be confused with any extreme xenophobic views. It is a straightforward principle that we should state clearly and act upon reasonably in the interests of the State, while also recognising our international obligations in terms of human rights. In accordance with this overarching principle, this important legislation sets out a modern and efficient method for dealing with the issues that have arisen in the State in the past ten or 15 years. I look forward to Committee Stage and to engaging with the representative bodies to tease out some of the more detailed aspects of the proposals. I commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context