Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

Just in case people get the contrary impression, no Minister takes any pleasure in destroying someone's dreams, irrespective of whether people exploited the asylum system or behaved in the most proper manner. They are human beings and are entitled to have their dreams as well as the ambitions for their families and children which one would expect.

I am reminded of the Swiss architect and writer, Max Frisch, who commented on Switzerland's Gastarbeiter policies, which I think are fairly typical of central Europe. He said "Wir suchten Arbeiter, und es kamen Menschen", meaning "We sought workers but what came were people". That is the big problem. One can have an economic analysis of migration but one must remember that it is people who come in response to whatever situation is created for them.

We are dealing with 11,000 people who had an Irish-born child before the referendum. I am not clear on how many of them are still in Ireland. Since the referendum we are dealing with some 6,000 or 7,000 people in the same situation. They involve a parent or two parents making applications to reside in Ireland. One could therefore be talking of some 17,000 people, some of them one-parent families. By the time one allows for siblings and so on being brought into the equation, perhaps siblings abroad, in Nigeria for example, one could be talking of between 25,000 and 40,000 or 50,000 people. As I said on Committee Stage in the Dáil debate, it will clearly be a matter of some concern whether, if a mother has a child in Ireland who is an Irish citizen, that person should remain in Ireland and also bring in her spouse or partner and perhaps her four other children which she has somewhere else in the world. One would have to make up one's mind about such an issue on a pragmatic basis.

Likewise, if someone in Ireland has an Irish child but has been seriously misbehaving, perhaps engaging in credit card fraud, drug dealing, prostitution and so on, I will have to decide whether it is in the interests of Ireland for that person to remain in the country simply because he or she has produced an extra Irish dependant. I must have a system which will distinguish between one situation and another. It will not be a simple line across a page, but must be based on an expedited examination of each of the cases involved to see who the people are, whether they have more children outside Ireland, whether they are married or single and so on. These aspects must be dealt with.

I acknowledge the delays in dealing with immigration matters — visas, employment permits and asylum and naturalisation applications. There is significant delay across the board. However, we are now dealing with a substantial problem which engulfed a Department which was not prepared for it. We now have approximately 600 civil servants dealing with the issue and those now redeployed will use better administrative practices to deal with all of the complexities of a migration service.

In addition to the Immigration and Residency Bill, to which I will quickly return, we are actively looking at the possibility of establishing a single immigration and naturalisation service for Ireland as a single agency within my Department. By definition, one of the major issues which will arise in that context is whether the employment permit or green card situation, as it might be, will be dealt with by the same agency which decides whether one comes into the country, or whether two Departments should, as at present, deal with these matters as two independent republics. That is a matter we must deal with very soon.

I accept that it is a bit strange that one can get into Ireland on the basis of a work permit to work for a single employer, with one's subsequent status contingent on remaining in that employment. I accept that is strange but, equally, there are implications in terms of social partnership to adopting an approach based on the Australian and New Zealand models where, for example, I or another Minister decides that the country needs 12,000 more construction workers and decides to go to the international market to bring them in. There are social partnership implications to decisions of that kind.

Perhaps next year we will make statutory provision for quotas along the lines of the Australian and New Zealand models but if we say there are 4,000 slots available for people from sub-Saharan Africa to come to live in Ireland and we get 60,000 applications, who will go through those applications fairly and work out whether a person from Malawi is more entitled to come here than a person from the Democratic Republic of Congo? Without conducting interviews, who will make a fair decision?

We must think all these issues through because they are easy to talk about. I am constantly amazed by people who say there should be a simple policy and that we should establish quotas but they must look at the other side of that equation and ask who will go through 40,000 applications, as the Americans have done on occasion. They have ended up holding lotteries and saying there is no way they can deal with all the paperwork. They have randomly selected the first ten, or the first 10%. It is fair but arbitrary.

Members should not imagine all these issues are easy to settle. Although they are difficult, it does not mean they should be avoided nor should complexities be minimised. There are serious issues of policy which this and the other House will have to address next year in the context of the new legislation.

I welcome what has been said in the House and I compliment my officials on drawing up consolidated legislation which has helped to make this a rational debate. I look forward to the Committee Stage debate and to getting the legislation through the Houses not because I am trying to rush it through, but because it allows me to address my mind to the common sense, pragmatic and decent business, which is work undone and must be addressed sooner rather than later.