Willie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)

This group of amendments comprises amendments Nos. 2, 9, 16 and 26. It addresses an issue which generated a considerable amount of debate in the Seanad when it last considered this Bill. It is now proposed to take a technically different approach to the question of a health-related basis for refusing leave to land. Amendment No. 26 provided for a new Schedule to the Bill. In the intervening period since the time the Bill was last before the House, the opportunity has been taken to reflect again on the best approach to this question. I trust Senators will agree that the outcome is a rational solution.

To place this in its historical perspective, the Aliens Order 1946 sets out health criteria for the refusal of leave to land which include references such as "lunatic", "idiot" and "mentally deficient" — terminology that now sounds horribly stigmatising and is thoroughly unacceptable. In 1972, following our accession to the EEC, provisions in respect of our obligations regarding free movement of persons and regulations were duly made under the European Communities Act 1972. In 1975 an amending Aliens Order made extensive changes to the 1946 order, including the adaptation of some provisions relating to the free movement of persons regime for general application. The old and now offensive-sounding provision was replaced with one that drew on the annex to Council Directive 64/221/EEC, which deals with limitations on the right to free movement between member states.

The effect was to insert into the Aliens Order a new schedule of what were described asdiseases and disabilities, reflecting theterminology of the directive and mirroringprecisely the list of conditions set out in the annex to that directive. The directive, made in 1964, is still in effect. Thus, since 1975 there has been a uniform basis for determining if, on health grounds, a non-national should be admitted to the State, whether that person is a national of an EU state or otherwise. The simplest and fairest option is to have the same criteria for both. That is the combined effect of Governmentamendments Nos. 9 and 26. They also do so in a manner that does not use inappropriate terminology.

Arguments have been made in some quarters, including in the other House, that there should be no optional power for an immigration officer to refuse a person on health grounds where that is appropriate. However, refusal on health grounds has in the past been rarely employed and I see no reason for any great change in that pattern in the future. We cannot have a situation where, were there to be an outbreak of a disease identified by the World Health Organisation as a danger to the public, immigration officers could not keep this disease out of Ireland. We would be failing in our duty to society if we were to go down that road. It would not be in the public interest to leave Ireland, alone among countries in the world, defenceless against such an outbreak. Nor do I think it is wise for us to have a more restrictive regime in place curtailing the free movement of EEA nationals, who have rights backed up by the treaties, than is the case for non-EEA nationals, whose position is that of a person seeking a concession rather than asserting a right. These amendments represent the fairest and simplest option.