David Norris (Independent)

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 7, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

"(iv) if the person was born to parents one of whom is declared a refugee after the date of birth of that person, and the parent is thereby entitled to reside in the State without any restriction on his or her period of residence (including in accordance with a permission granted under section 4 of the Act of 2004),".

I do not wish to take up too much of the House's time and acknowledge the Minister gave answers to the questions raised on Committee Stage. However, I wonder whether there has been time for what a distinguished member of the Minister of State's party described as "mature reflection".

Amendment No. 2 relates to a question of straightforward discrimination, particularly because it affects a child born to a person while in the asylum system, when that parent is subsequently determined to have legitimately become a refugee; the matter involves a calculation of time. The point is that the parent was always a refugee and the subsequent determination does not mean the person was not a refugee from the time the application was made but rather that the determination would mean that the person was a refugee all along, which fact should be taken into account in the calculation of the period.

The other amendment also related to a question of discrimination between, for example, migrant workers and international students. It would be futile for me to rehearse the entire argument. However, the Minister understood my point that a certain level of discrimination existed, which was unfortunate and regrettable given that students contribute enormously to our society in terms of the exaggerated fees they pay. For example, I was part of a group that originated a diploma which became an M.Phil in Anglo-Irish literature, for which the college milked fees from the students. Students at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland also pay enormous fees, some graduates of which continue to work and give their service here and form attachments and so on. It seems somewhat arbitrary that all this time spent in college in Ireland should be just wiped off the slate.

The other argument I made about the way in which the Bill was framed was that two persons, one of whom was a migrant worker and the other a student, might be treated differently although they might have spent the same amount of time in the country. I am happy to support amendment No. 4 in the interests of the Labour Party if the House wishes it, although it is slightly less swingeing than my own amendment No. 3, which is roughly similar in intent but seeks to delete lines 6 to 19, whereas the Labour Party amendment proposes to delete only lines 6 to 10.