Mal O'Hara (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I have listened carefully to the debate thus far. We in the Green Party approach this issue on a humanitarian basis. Senator Higgins has articulated the reality of the crisis of people dying in the Mediterranean and how the EU and certain member states along the southern European coast have not responded in any way appropriately to that crisis. It is a challenge. We live in an increasingly unstable world, with challenges in regard to climate change exacerbating situations in which people must flee famine and climate catastrophe. In addition, there are those fleeing persecution, war or discrimination in their home countries. We know the numbers migrating will increase. Proportionally, Ireland takes a fraction of asylum seekers globally.

We need to respond to these global crises as best as possible by way of a pan-European approach. I am an unvetted male. I cross the Border two to three times or more every week. The colour of my skin protects me from being stopped and searched on public transport. I am a good Green Party person; I travel by train or bus. The language that has developed around this issue gives me serious cause for concern. I am from the North but I lived in England for seven years from the late 1990s to the mid-2000s. I saw the rampant increase in the use of inappropriate language to harass the vulnerable and target migrants, asylum seekers and refugees. It is important for us as legislators to be very clear about the language we use in this debate. The language I see and hear, particularly on one form of social media, often refers to unvetted males. I have made the point that I am an unvetted male. I had an AccessNI check several times in my previous professional employment to enable me to work with vulnerable people. There is the idea that people of a different skin colour from us pose a threat to us and to our society. I am really conscious of the language we use in this regard. We must be very clear in our choice of words.

Under today's understanding of asylum and migration, how many millions of people left Ireland as economic migrants, if that is the language we are using? How many of those who left would be accepted for asylum today? Perhaps those fleeing the Famine or from persecution and injustice before Independence would meet the criteria, but those leaving since Independence probably would not. The population in the South continued to drop until the 1960s because people left for better economic opportunities. Senator McDowell talked about the enterprising West Africans who make their way through Spain and other parts of Europe to get to Ireland. What about the enterprising people from west Cork who went all around the globe looking for better economic opportunities? Ireland is apparently the land of the céad míle fáilte, or 100,000 welcomes. I hope we can continue to be that land.

It is important to challenge the language that says Ireland is full. We have a smaller population now than we had at the time of the Famine. It is true that our infrastructure is under pressure. We have a housing crisis, both North and South. In the South, we are making steady progress in addressing it. We hope to have 40,000 new builds by the end of this year. In the North, the Executive has signed off on building 400 social homes when there are 45,000 people on the waiting list. A report last week said the number may actually be as high as 80,000. At the current pace of change, it will take the Executive in the North almost 200 years to house all those people. As I said, we face a housing crisis and challenge in both the North and the South. We also face challenges in regard to the provision of infrastructure for new and growing populations.

I will not flirt with the language of the far right. I am really proud that the Government, during the Brexit disaster and debacle, fought hard to ensure we have an open Border on this island. We have had the common travel area for decades. There may be space, if we get a more sensible Government in the UK, to look at codifying how we deal in practice with asylum seekers and with migration across this island and between our two islands. When I was a councillor in Belfast, one of the most poignant experiences I had is particularly relevant to this debate. I and other elected representatives visited a hotel, unannounced, in which asylum seekers were being housed. I saw mothers with a brood of children each living in a single hotel room. The space for those children to play was on a set of fire escape stairs or in the hotel reception. They did not have any space. In the North, in particular, we have used hotels, Airbnb properties and other similar accommodation for people seeking asylum. In response to what I saw at that hotel, I brought a motion to Belfast City Council calling for free access to leisure services for asylum seekers. This would mean people had somewhere to go for physical activity, stimulation and integration into their communities. Luckily, I achieved all-party support for the motion.

Some of the language being used in this debate is reflective of the debacle of the "hostile environment" referenced by the former British Prime Minister, Theresa May, when she was in charge at the Home Office in 2012. The hostile environment idea was about deterring people from coming to the UK to seek asylum or as economic migrants. It was about preventing people from accessing NHS or social care services, from being able to work, which still stands, and from being able to rent a property. We have seen an extension of that type of language over recent decades. The Brexit debacle was one of the key planks of this approach, with the idea that people could be prevented from coming to the UK if the country left the European Union. Of course, the figures and evidence suggest that is not true.

We are hearing talk from a desperate Tory Government about stopping the boats. We have had threats of deportation and the failed Rwanda plan. I am glad somebody took a human rights case in the North to challenge that. I hope, after 4 July, that the incoming UK Government will be more sensible than its predecessor. I hope it will address the North-South issues. There is also a need for our Government to engage with the Executive in the North. While it does not have responsibility for these matters, there are practical steps the Executive can take to address the issues systemically.

We must address these issues on a Europe-wide basis. The migration and asylum pact is the best opportunity to do that. We can speed up the time for processing of applications. The Government has already moved on this by tripling the number of decisions being taken. That is the pace of change we want to see from the State. We also want to move away from reliance on the private sector towards the greater use of publicly owned accommodation and land. Green parties across Europe have had some disagreements regarding the pact. We have concerns about how it may be used by authoritarian regimes and governments that do not have a good human rights record. We hope for a process involving greater collaboration across Europe that will lead to solidarity. The Minister of State, Deputy James Browne, outlined the expectation that we would take 640 asylum seekers per annum or pay the fee of €12.9 million. Solidarity means that in a situation where we are facing labour shortages, we can take additional individuals seeking asylum. We can vary the number, including by upping it. That is an important point.

I hope the tenor of the rest of this debate is such that there is an avoidance of the use of inflammatory language that targets vulnerable people, including those seeking asylum. I support the motion.