Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)

The Chair will see by our actions later that we treat this matter very seriously. The manner in which this is being dealt with is absolutely deplorable.

This Bill was introduced to remedy constitutional defects in existing law, as highlighted recently in the High Court case. The defects stem from section 2(1) of the Immigration Act 1999, which was brought forward by the Government when the current Minister, Deputy McDowell, was Attorney General. The 1999 Act was an attempt to confer retrospective validity on a series of regulations, the constitutionality of which had previously been questioned by the courts in the famous Laurentiu decision. The Government failed a second time to remedy the problem, to put it simply, when it attempted to fix the problem highlighted by the Laurentiu decision.

I have said already that the speed with which this Bill is being pursued is absolutely unacceptable. The Minister of State, Deputy Lenihan, and the Minister, Deputy McDowell, have said that this legislation will close the loopholes highlighted last week. It does much more than that, however, as it introduces measures above and beyond the provisions which were exposed last week. I take great exception to this Bill's provisions, which need to be dealt with in a proper fashion and with sufficient time being provided. I would like to highlight some of the Bill's provisions which are outside the scope of the High Court decision.

Section 4(3)(d) provides that a non-national can be refused admission to the State if he or she has been imprisoned for a year or more. If we examine this one-year provision, we will find that Mr. Nelson Mandela, for example, would not be allowed to come to this country again. This new provision relates to an area which was not highlighted by the High Court. What will happen to a non-national who comes from a country where one can be sentenced to five years in prison for stealing a bar of chocolate, for example? This ridiculous provision will prohibit many people from entering this country.

Section 9(4) seems to demand that Irish citizens act as immigration officers, just as the Minister wants to turn publicans into police officers. This section will mean that Irish people will have to report non-nationals staying in their houses if they think such non-nationals are illegal. It is absolutely incredible.

Section 10 states that hotel-keepers will have to maintain "a register in the prescribed form of all non-nationals staying at the premises". Will hotel-keepers be expected to ask guests whether they are non-nationals? Many people in this country do not look what may be termed "Irish". How is one supposed to determine whether a given person is a non-national? This provision will create great problems for hotel-keepers and for many others. Section 10 should be withdrawn.

I have not had time to read through the report I received this morning, which highlights a number of issues. It claims that section 4, which relates to the recognition of states in international law, will allow immigration officers to refuse leave to land to non-nationals who are in possession of a travel document from a Government which is not recognised by the Irish State. The section will have a negative impact on persons who originate from countries we do not recognise, such as Somalia and Tibet, and those from countries with which we do not have diplomatic relations, such as newly independent states.

Section 4(5)(d) requires non-nationals who wish to remain in the State for longer than a month to seek permission in writing from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or an immigration officer acting on the Minister's behalf. Immigration officers can currently issue visas to non-nationals for up to three months, with an option of renewal. I intend to propose an amendment to this section, which represents a serious departure from previous practice and is unworkable. A provision requiring people to seek permission from the Minister if they wish to stay for longer than a month will not work. Given that it now takes longer than a month to get permission from the Minister, I do not understand how the Government can justify the inclusion of this measure. It is quite unworkable.

I would like more time to go through the representations I have received so that I can adequately address the issues raised by certain organisations. The Bill fails to set out any provisions governing family reunification for non-nationals. There are no provisions for persons in need of protection, but who fall outside the refugee convention. This legislation does not introduce procedures for non-nationals who are married to Irish citizens or long-time residents. I am also concerned about citizens, international students, permission for business persons and bridging periods for non-nationals who wish to re-establish themselves after losing work permits through no fault of their own, etc.

The report produced by the Immigrant Council of Ireland, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and the Irish Refugee Council raises many issues which need to be considered but are not addressed in this Bill. We have not had time to put down amendments to address them. The legislation is flawed in many ways and should be rejected.