Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

If we adopted the United Kingdom's approach, which no one could argue is impractical, I am sure the Senator would have something to say about that. We cannot have it both ways.

The law is now exactly as it was understood to be up to 22 January. We have adopted the same regulations for both EEA and non-EEA nationals. We are working hard in the Department to update the legislation. I think Sinn Féin tabled an amendment in the other House to the effect that there should be a 270 day time limit on this legislation. The Minister did not accept it. We were not opposed to it in principle, but we could not guarantee that the other legislation would be ready within 270 days. It might take slightly longer than that, but we hope to have it before both Houses of the Oireachtas by the middle of next year at the latest.

As regards the point made about the letter from Schizophrenia Ireland, I am aware there is an EU directive in gestation. However, it has not yet seen the light of day. If it becomes an EU directive, which we would welcome, we will be obliged to transpose that into our domestic law. It relates to the psychiatric element of the issue. However, because it is an EU directive, it will only cover EEA nationals. If we introduce that law for EEA nationals, we will apply the same regulations and law to non-EEA nationals. In view of the correspondence from Schizophrenia Ireland, there is a note from the Department which I will read into the record. It states:

I am aware that there is a Common Position arrived at by the EU Council of Ministers, the effect of which is that there should be a new Directive covering all aspects of the Treaty right of free movement for EU citizens, and that as part of that proposed Directive, the present Annex to Directive no. 221/64/EEC should be replaced with a considerably more succinct expression of the health restrictions on the right of free movement. I am aware that the proposed restrictions will not include reference either to drug addiction or to profound mental disturbance.

I am also aware that the proposed Directive is not yet an actual Directive, and will not be unless and until the European Parliament concludes its current consideration of the matter and does so in a manner that clears the way for the making of the proposed Directive. This Bill deals with the position as it is now: it puts in place for non-EEA nationals exactly the same regime as regards health-based restrictions as at present exists for EEA nationals, restoring the position as it has been under the Aliens Order 1946 as amended by the Aliens Order 1975. This Bill makes no change to what was thought to be the law in this regard until 22 January last, when the High Court declared its statutory basis to be unconstitutional — no more and no less.

If and when the Common Position develops into an actual EU Directive (which I would welcome, and hope that it will be sooner rather than later), I can assure the House that the necessary steps will be taken, as they must be, to implement that Directive in Irish domestic law. The opportunity will be taken at that stage to review the position regarding health restrictions on the entry of non-EEA nationals to the State.

As I have said, the fairest arrangement, and in practical terms the simplest to operate, is that the same criteria should apply to both categories of persons; and that is the most likely outcome of that review.

I would finally like to reiterate that the conditions in section 4(3)(c) are, like all of the other conditions listed in that subsection, merely a basis on which the immigration officer may exercise a discretion on the Minister's behalf to refuse leave to land. The existence of one or more of the conditions listed at paragraphs (a) to (k) is not a compulsion to refuse leave to land, merely the basis for a discretion — a discretion being exercised as a matter of daily practice frequently in favour of the incoming non-national.