Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)

I am very pleased to speak on this extremely important legislation. It is a new brief for me so I have had a very short period of time to read and absorb what is a very substantial Bill. I followed the progress of the immigration Bill which came before the House two years ago and the detailed work done on Committee Stage.

I will start on a positive note by saying that I am pleased some improvements have been made in this Bill and that some of the constructive proposals put forward on Second and Committee Stages have been taken on board by the Minister. Deputy Naughten, who spoke earlier, put an enormous amount of time and energy into the passage of the original immigration Bill. His contribution earlier was very wide-ranging and touched on many issues which, sadly, are still in need of attention as far as this legislation is concerned and which will require constructive engagement on Committee Stage between the Minister and the Opposition spokespeople in order to ensure the legislation that emerges is robust and will withstand what are rapidly changing times both in terms of the needs and demands of immigrants and migrants and the economic situation in which we find ourselves.

I wish to deal with some of the background issues in regard to the legislation. Clear legislation setting out the parameters and the protections required to introduce a sense of certainty and transparency into the immigration system has been glaringly absent for a long time. In a sense, it is somewhat ironic that we are dealing with this legislation at a time when the tide of immigration into the country has significantly receded. At the time when we had an enormous influx of immigrants, we did not have suitable, modern and responsive legislation in place to deal with that. However, by virtue of that absence, we still have a large number of outstanding issues to resolve in terms of immigrants and asylum seekers who are currently in the system and are finding it extremely frustrating. A number of Deputies from both sides of the House alluded to the visits paid to them in their clinics by non-nationals with different queries, questions and concerns and many frustrations. Those people still need clarity and to be dealt with in a transparent fashion. I hope this legislation will go some way to achieve that.

One of the concerns I have that highlights the urgent need for this legislation to be introduced is the sheer volume of judicial reviews which, I it is fair to say, are slowly coming before the High Court and which should not be. The fact that a judicial review process is considered a mechanism to solve an asylum, a residency or a citizenship issue is wrong. Those are matters that should be dealt with within the system and it is unacceptable, to say the least, that these issues end up going through judicial review procedures. It is fair to say also that many of those judicial review applications are vexatious and designed to buy time for applicants who may not have a sufficiently compelling case to succeed in their application.

While I am on the topic I will deal with section 133. This is an important point because the Bill puts in place mechanisms to disincentivise patently vexatious applications ending up before the High Court. Section 133 contains penalties for legal representatives in the form of the prospect of bearing costs for such applications. That is a constructive and positive development. It means that solicitors or barristers who engage in judicial reviews which ought not to be taken will have to bear the brunt of an unsuccessful claim of that nature by way of costs.

There is also a proviso in section 133 that in an application for a judicial review an applicant must demonstrate substantial grounds for such a review. That poses problems and I believe it is unnecessary, given that the costs issue is already dealt with. There is potential for a penalty to be imposed on legal representatives who bring forward a vexatious or frivolous claim. I am not clear as to the reason one would, further to that, introduce this requirement for substantial grounds because it is a vague term. We have seen it in regard to planning legislation. We have seen a significant volume of unnecessary litigation based on the term "substantial grounds" and bringing it into the asylum system will open up a large can of worms. That is something I want to flag with the Minister because it will have to be dealt with on Committee Stage.

In terms of the general issues, it is not something politicians or public commentators want to talk about openly but I have detected a growing degree of xenophobia, racism and anti-non-national sentiment which has developed in recent years in this country. That is understandable because the combination of constrained and difficult economic times, coupled with a non-transparent asylum and immigration system and a social welfare system that is in dire need of reform, is a recipe for disaster. For that reason in particular it is vital that we get this legislation right because my party and, in fairness, most parties in these Houses see the need for immigration into the country. It contributes to the cultural fabric of our society. It has served an important role in terms of the economic needs of our country.

We are all aware that, for example, the services industry and the hospitality sector have benefited enormously from the inward migration of workers to this country in the past ten years or more. There are significant benefits for our economy and our society. We are and ought to continue to be an open-minded and welcoming nation. We are famed for it throughout the world. Our historical context is also relevant in that regard because we are a country that has exported our people. For centuries, Irish people have travelled to the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and Australia seeking employment. When times were bad here people went abroad, and it is happening again. We are all too familiar with the stories of young people emigrating from our shores at this time.

We must develop and encourage a sense of responsibility and openness to the people who come here and contribute to our society. As politicians and political leaders we must knock on the head the idea that people are coming here in large numbers to sponge off the State. It is not the case. The vast majority of immigrants who come to this country do so because they want to work, develop a better life for themselves and their families and contribute. They like this country, they like the people and they want to contribute to our economy and our society.

Asylum seekers - the terminology is being changed under the Bill but I will use it for the duration of the Second Stage debate at least - who come here are coming from circumstances with which we, as a nation, should be prepared to identify. They are coming from war-torn and conflict regions and places where they and their families' health and safety is in danger. It is important that we never forget that. We do not categorise people and forget about them or not want to know about them. We must accept that as a sometimes thriving and open nation we have a responsibility, and we are enriched by meeting those challenges and responsibilities.

That is the context in which I approach this legislation. That is not to say that we live in an ideal world or that the entire area is a sort of Utopian concept. There are problems and there will always be people who will behave in a fraudulent manner but no more non-nationals than our own nationals. We must be clear about that and recognise the positives.

I will focus on some specific issues but I will first outline the issues I have some concerns about and that some of the groups who work on a daily and weekly basis with people who are currently within the system have highlighted, and some of the issues we addressed on Committee Stage of the previous Bill.

Deputy Shatter, and Deputy Rabbitte, succinctly outlined the concerns regarding the lack of clarity and clear rules for migrants seeking to come to Ireland. Section 17 is the section which is the most cause for concern in that regard. It will be a contentious section as the Bill progresses because it gives such a degree of scope and latitude to the Minister in determining whether a visa application is successful. That is a serious concern because the purpose of putting in place a consolidated immigration Act is to provide certainty and clarity for immigrants seeking to come to this country. Leaving one of the most important aspects of it so wide open defeats the purpose of the Bill.

My experience from clinics is that most of the people who come in with questions relating to visa or immigration issues have found that the websites and information available on them provide no clarity. They cannot understand why their applications are returned to them or why they are not deemed to meet the requisite criteria. Therefore, the introduction of a Bill which should deal with these issues, but which leaves the requirements and standards wide open and invests so much power and discretion in the Minister is extraordinary. The Bill will achieve the opposite of what is intended, will create greater uncertainty and add to the lack of clarity which has already riven the immigration system. It will make the situation even worse, which is unfortunate. Fine Gael will propose amendments on Committee Stage to try to deal with these issues, but I also urge the Minister and officials to reconsider the issues and come forward on Committee Stage with some sort of compromise wording which will get around this challenge.

The review system is another issue. In a sense, I began backwards in talking about the problems with judicial review, which is important. However, there are shortcomings within the internal review mechanisms contained in the Bill. The review mechanisms will certainly not address the problem of so many of these applications being judicially reviewed or the problem of the number of applications for leave for judicial review. It is important that there is a robust internal appeals and review mechanism that is transparent. The objective of this mechanism should be to satisfy applicants and eliminate grounds for judicial review. The system must be transparent, clear and fair and must encompass all possible avenues for review so that there will be no need to clog up the High Court with pointless judicial reviews. We keep returning to this same requirement. For example, section 21 provides for a review of decisions by another departmental official, and where practicable by an official of higher grade. This does not provide the degree of transparency and independence required in order to make the system robust and fair and ensure it will eliminate unnecessary legal action. Neither does this provision solve the problems of the delays in the system or the clogging up of the system which, over the past ten years, has got increasingly worse.

I have dwelled too long on these issues rather than focus on the issues I had intended to highlight so I will briefly summarise the points I wanted to make in the time remaining to me. There is a perception that there is significant social welfare fraud and crime, which feeds into the growing sentiment of negativity towards immigrants and asylum seekers. I feel strongly that this issue needs to be addressed. There is a certain degree of fraud within the system and some people will chance their arm. However, this is true of any nation or nationality. We need to clamp down on fraud and make the system more robust so that people will have confidence in it. If it is a strong and robust system, the public will buy into and have confidence in it. This will lead to less resentment and tension. An issue we need to consider in this regard is, for example, the issue of an integrated border management system. This is something that is being developed at EU level, but we need to consider proposals such as a border register which logs departures from and entries into the country. This is an obvious solution to resolving questions such as whether people draw social welfare here and then return to their home country. Addressing these issues may not make the Government popular, but if it does address them it will get greater support and more people will buy into its efforts to sort out the visa, immigration and asylum systems.

I will finish on the issue of illegal immigration. Human trafficking is an issue on which I have often spoken in this Chamber. Despite commitments from the Minister and despite repeated statements on the issue, women and others trafficked into this country have little or no protection and are treated in a more sub-human way than the perpetrators of these crimes. These people are victims and must be protected by the State. I urge the Minister to take this into account in bringing the legislation to the House.

See this speech in context