Seanad debates

Wednesday, 29 June 2016

Immigration (Reform) (Regularisation of Residency Status) Bill 2016: Second Stage

 

10:30 am

Photo of Alice-Mary HigginsAlice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

If we are to negotiate with the UK around the common travel area, what we need is a system that is objectively fair and transparent and properly applied, which we can stand over.Not only do I reject the amendment, I also reject arguments to the effect that we should suspend fair systems within our asylum, refugee and immigration system in order to facilitate negotiation in respect of a common travel area. Are we to chase the narrative on immigration that we have heard in the UK? Unfortunately, that is what some of the testimony we have heard today seems to suggest. Will we will adopt a weak position and talk about a common travel area without a clear strategy of our own? Will we leave ourselves vulnerable to chasing the narrative around the phrasing which we heard during the citizenship referendum campaign here in 2004, which led to an increase in racist incidents of the sort that are happening again in the UK? We are giving space to the narrative about pressure on our system and services to take root if we fail to move forward and provide an 18-month suspension. Will we then see headlines in the newspapers for 18 months?

Moreover, the legal arguments are inaccurate. The Government suggests, in paragraphs (ii) and (v), that there is some problem with the case-by-case criteria. It is absolutely clear in this Bill that while the period of four years is necessary, it is not sufficient in itself to acquire status. Nonetheless criteria are still applied and the case-by-case criteria still apply. In terms of Article 40.1, which I presume is the constitutional reference made in paragraph (v), equal treatment before the law, the law has a long-established practice of setting timelines. As stated, however, the case-by-case criteria apply. I contend that if we agree to this Government amendment, we are not only agreeing to a suspension for 18 months, and pandering to potentially dangerous narratives, but we are also accepting flawed legal arguments in paragraphs (ii) and (v).

I welcome the commencement of the International Protection Act 2015, which, I believe, can be done in a timely fashion. If the Bill before us is enacted, I hope the International Protection Act 2015 will be in place. The preamble to the Bill acknowledges its expectation that it would complement rather than supersede the International Protection Act 2015. The implementation of the working group’s report should proceed apace and is in no way inhibited by this. I strongly urge all in the House, including my colleagues in Fianna Fáil, who in their consciences are aware that they supported this Bill in the past, to please support it now. It is more urgent and necessary than ever before and no strong or acceptable legal argument has been put forward for the delay.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.