Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

Deputy Deenihan is very generous.

Section 16 provides for the revocation of visas. Again, I have no objection to this. One of the circumstances in which a visa can be revoked is where it was granted in error. In such cases, the State should bear the cost of the revocation and perhaps also the cost of repatriation.

The issue of aged out minors is a controversial one, which we discussed with the previous Minister, Mr. Michael McDowell. Given that it relates only to a limited group of people, I have argued that an amnesty should be offered. These are people who came here at a formative period in their lives and have benefited from the State's education system. This is as it should be because education is a right not a privilege. They have formed links with their communities. However, because of the slowness of the process and also perhaps because of the actions of lawyers, they have waited a long time for a decision.

One cannot argue that a 16 or 17 year old has conspired with the system to drag the matter out in the hope that the sheer flux of time will wear down the authorities and lead to a positive decision. When I was 16 years old, I had no clue about anything like that. What is at fault is the slowness of the process. Deportations of such persons should not take place lightly. A specific dispensation should apply in the case of aged out minors and it should be the most liberal of all liberal regimes. I understand the Minister will consider this in due course.

I bow to Deputy Coveney's knowledge of the issue of human trafficking. I admire how he has led the charge in this area. It is probably fair to impose a penalty of €3,000 on a carrier that unlawfully brings a person who does have the relevant documents into the State. It is probably unfair on shipping companies, however. It is much easier for airlines to prevent activity of that nature. It is obvious that many people come into this jurisdiction on boats or over land. It do not think this problem even arises in the case of airlines. That issue might be examined.

Before I move on to the issue of family reunification, I wish to state that I do not believe we should have an immigration appeals tribunal. There is no need for such an additional layer of bureaucracy. There are too many quangos in this country. Each of the 300 or 400 bodies of that nature detracts from the power of this House and the Government. They were each established to deal with a matter that Departments do not have the time to deal with, or cannot be trusted to deal with. Those who oppose certain aspects of this Bill have called for the development of an immigration appeals tribunal because they do not trust the Minister — they feel he has too much power. I do not accept that because I believe in democracy. The Government that has been elected should be able to, and be trusted to, discharge all the powers given to it in a fair manner. That is the nature of democracy. I have no difficulty with giving these powers to the Minister.

I would support the introduction in the Bill of some measures relating to family reunification. Section 50 of the Bill transposes into Irish law the EU directive on the mass influx of people during difficult times. It is obvious that the directive will not apply here — it has never applied. Section 50 also lists the family members, including grandparents and dependent children, who will be permitted to come here after an applicant has been given residence here on the basis of the directive. However, the rest of the Bill does not comment on the question of family reunification. The section of the Bill dealing with the EU directive contemplates the issue of family reunification, but the rest of the legislation is silent on the issue. We should show a little more courage by grasping the nettle in respect of this key issue. If this Bill is passed, Ireland will be the only European country that does not deal with this matter in its immigration legislation.

I do not have a problem with the proposal to allow costs to be awarded against lawyers. This country's asylum appeals mechanism is completely bogged down in spurious cases. People are taking advantage of the system, to the detriment of genuine refugee applicants. The cost of such behaviour to the State is out of all proportion to the genuineness of the applications. There are too many layers of appeal within the asylum process. It takes the system far too long to make a decision on an application for a visa or for asylum. Something has to be done about that. The taking of unnecessary, frivolous and vexatious legal proceedings is part of the problem. In many cases, lawyers take cases which have no merit for the sake of dragging out the process unnecessarily. Costs are awarded against lawyers in other types of proceedings. Two or three years ago, the master of the High Court famously made an order for costs against a lawyer because of the type of case. Provisions of this nature are included in other legislation. They are not unprecedented.

I should declare an interest — my father is a member of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. It is essential, in the interests of consistency, that the tribunal's decisions be published and circulated widely. It does not matter who is appointed to the tribunal, or how much experience they have, as long as there is openness, transparency and consistency in the tribunal's dealings. If people know where they stand legally, the entire system will benefit.

See this speech in context