Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State and I also welcome the introduction of the Immigration Bill 2004. It is interesting that we are discussing a 2004 High Court decision about legislation enacted in 1935 and an Aliens Order of 1946. I compliment the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, for comprehensively setting out the background to this legislation. He mentioned the effects of the court decision, such as the implications for non-nationals who are in this country at present. He outlined how he proposes to deal with the relevant issues. I intend to examine some aspects of his speech.

The Minister of State reminded us that the Supreme Court acknowledged in 1986 that the inherent element of State sovereignty over national territory has been recognised for a long time in domestic and international law. This sovereignty has been exercised and must continue to be exercised. The Minister of State's speech also made clear some of the major implications of the High Court decision in granting the declaration and in creating a legislative lacuna when it gives its judgment, which may well be today.

The provisions of this Bill will help us to exercise our sovereignty properly and to ensure this area is regulated. The legislation includes provisions relating to the appointment of immigration officers. The new immigration controls on non-nationals entering, or seeking to enter, the State will include the right to refuse leave to land. The rules of permission to remain in the State will include conditions relating to whether non-nationals are permitted to work and the duration of stay. The Bill provides for Garda registration of non-nationals. The Garda will be given the power to check non-nationals for evidence that they are permitted to remain in the State and to charge non-nationals for breaches of such permission to remain, or for illegal presence in the State. The Garda will have the power to arrest and detain for such offences. Anyone would agree it is incumbent on the State to provide for such powers. I noted with interest the Minister of State's comments regarding the implications for the approximately 128,000 non-nationals who are currently registered with the Garda Síochána and the effect it might have on their seeking to re-enter the country on a valid visa after visiting their homes. There may also be implications for these people if they seek to become naturalised in the State.

The legislation restates what was thought to be the law up to the date of the High Court decision. The Minister of State explained that the obligation for non-nationals to present themselves to an immigration officer on arrival in the State for leave to land is prescribed in the Bill, as are the power for an officer to refuse leave to land to a non-national and the circumstances under which he may do so; the power to attach to permission to enter the State conditions about the duration of the stay and engagement in business, profession or employment; the obligations for non-nationals to comply with registration requirements while in the State; and the power to extend permission to remain in the State and to attach or amend conditions to such permissions. Offences for breaches of immigration law are also created in the Bill, with powers of arrest. If we are to exercise our obligations in this regard — the State has obligations to all its citizens — the powers must be there to enable State agencies to give effect to these provisions.

By way of providing background, the general policy of the State with regard to asylum and immigration matters is worth restating. The State is committed to providing the application of fair procedures, in accordance with law, to all immigrants. Persons found to be in need of refugee protection will always be given protection in Ireland in accordance with our international obligations. In that regard, the programme for Government has included the need to increase the rate of repatriation for failed asylum applicants whose applications have been processed to finality in order to maintain the integrity of the policy. There was a considerable backlog in this area, but significant steps have been taken to expedite matters. The time in which asylum applications are processed has also been significantly improved. The programme for Government emphasises that this should be done within six months. That is fair to all sides, including the applicants. Their status can be determined and they can have clarity with regard to their application as early as possible.

While making representations to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform about a number of applicants, I found that there is a need for greater transparency and more information to be forthcoming from the Department. I found in the Department a certain culture — to say there was a culture of secrecy might be too strong, but there was certainly a minimalist approach to giving information about representations. This should be investigated. In any aspect of the exercise of governmental powers it is important that there is transparency. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, perhaps because of its nature and traditions, seems not to be a strong proponent of that philosophy. Perhaps some changes are required. Some people have commented that there is no right of appeal, but there is. Any asylum seeker has provision to make application to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. This should be recognised in debates in the House.

I have mentioned already the effects of the High Court decision. It would make totally inoperable any sensible immigration policy, which would result in a failure to exercise our power, which goes right to the heart of our sovereignty. That must be recognised. I feel strongly that we should ensure that proper procedures are followed and that the process is expedited for the benefit of the State and of applicants. That should be part of the overall operation of the system. We should be reminded of the comments of Kofi Annan, who said that we must manage the challenges of immigration and that it is a key issue for the European Union. It is not practical for any country to have an open-door policy, although some people advocate this without any foundation to their arguments. Apart from economic and other considerations, there are security implications. We need to have proper, effective controls at our frontier to ensure the safety of our society.

I have acknowledged that it is not good practice to rush legislation through in one day, although this did happen here a number of times in December and to my surprise, there were no objections. It is a practice in which we should not engage as a rule. However, sometimes there can be an emergency which necessitates this. The Minister said in his comments that he regards this as an emergency. We are giving the apparatus of State a legislative basis for exercising the controls which were in place up to the High Court decision. No significant changes have been made to practices which were in place and starting to operate effectively. Included in the Minister's speech was reference to the fact that comprehensive legislation is now being prepared within the Department which will replace prior legislation. I look forward to that and I am sure it will give this House and the other House a good opportunity to tease out the issues pertaining to legislation in this area and put it in a modern context.