Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by previous speakers in respect of this particular issue. I realise and know full well that we cannot solve the problems of refugees seeking refuge all over Europe. To be fair to the European Union, it was not the Union that made the decision to repel people from borders.

It was the individual countries in the European Union that took that stand, and they did so on the basis that there was not room for all the people seeking a safe haven. There may well not be. If one studies history, however, and looks at old film files from the 1930s, it will be possible to see thousands of people, with their belongings, walking, riding donkeys and bicycles, on carts and using every possible means of transport try to get to a safer place. They were trying to get to a place they felt was going to be better. Those people were not running away for fun. They were not leaving because they were going for a holiday. They were going somewhere else, to a safe place, because they felt threatened where they were. They were threatened, and many of those people were exterminated.

What we must look at now is how far we have come in the intervening period. I fear it is not very far. No matter what we say or where we say it, there will always be people in this country as well as in other European countries who will say that we cannot look after the world. It is right that we cannot, but we can make an attempt to look after some part of it. We can make some kind of a gesture, and put in place some kind of regulatory system that will at least have some appeal for the people who are desperate and encourage them towards it. Many of these people are now relying on racketeers, who have no concern for their safety or well-being.

Not so long ago, I had to remind some colleagues from another European country who were steadfastly opposed to accommodating anybody from any other country beyond the European Union that in 1957 we saw people running away from countries in central Europe. Those people ran for days, in terror, looking for some safe haven. As I said to one of those colleagues, we did not have a lot in this country in 1957 to offer to anybody, but we offered and we took some people on board. Those people proved helpful, and they stayed, grew into our economy and helped it. They brought their skills with them. We did that at that time in this country because there was a recognition of the humanitarian need to do something and to make a gesture. The gesture was important to those people, because they felt at that time that not everybody was against them. When those people from central Europe had their backs to the wall, they went somewhere, applied for refuge and got it. It was not to the extent they would have wanted, but many European countries did the same thing because there was a general recognition that something needed to be done.

I believe that same need exists now. I spoke about this issue in different committees at various times in the European Parliament and its environs. I was disappointed, however, not by the institutions of the European Union, but by the attitudes of the member states. The member states are the ones that decided to put up the walls and barricades. It was just the same as the wall that President Trump attempted to build to keep people out. How can it be possible to try to keep people out of a sophisticated modern economy, and to keep those poor, unfortunate and desperate people on the other side of such a fence? Do people think it is possible to keep people out indefinitely? Was it possible when Germany was divided? The wall across Berlin was thought to be the greatest thing ever, that it was going to stop everybody, and that nobody could ever get through, over or around it without being killed. We all went to see the wall, and all that kind of thing. The fact is that it did not prevail. It did not prevail because it was an injustice. It did not recognise the rights of individuals, the need for some kind of a humanitarian gesture and the need to recognise what the people on both sides of that particular wall wanted. Eventually, it disappeared.

What is possible in the context of this Bill is limited, but nonetheless there comes a time when we should look around us and ask ourselves how far have we come in this regard. Are we now capable of addressing issues such as these? For instance, we saw an image of a small child sitting down on a kerb along a road in Syria. It was about 18 months ago or two years ago, or perhaps a little more. He was covered in grime and soot from the smoke of explosions. He had put one hand to his head and looked at it because he felt it was bleeding. He cut a forlorn and small figure. It is very hard for us to look at these things and to not say somebody should do something. We know they should. We are part of that context as well, and we need to influence our ourselves and our neighbours towards acknowledging the need to take part in shouldering this burden.

There are those who say that Italy, Cyprus and Greece are on the front line and that they should do more. Those countries, however, have done an awful lot already. They have offered succour to millions of people, and so has Germany. We can claim they did it for their own selfish reasons, because they wanted employees, or whatever. All European countries are the same in that regard. They can all benefit from extra help and extra helping hands. I believe, therefore, that we must examine this aspect of international relations. We should be seeking to create a means of influencing ourselves and our European neighbours with a view to offering some sort of refuge to those people who now feel so desperate that the only thing they can do is to get on board a vessel that is not seaworthy, knowing full well that there is a good chance of a tragedy.

See this speech in context