D a i l Speeches M a y

Adjournment Debate 15|05|03 - Need to re-introduce money back bottles and cans.
Disabilities Bill 29|05|03
Immigration Bill 29|05|03

Deputy Gogarty  
I speak tonight in my capacity as tourism spokesperson and also as a bog standard Deputy from Dublin Mid-West constituency, which has fast-growing areas such as Lucan and Clondalkin and more rural areas such as Newcastle, Saggart, Rathcoole and Brittas. I constantly receive phone calls from people in all those places about rubbish, dumping, litter and all sorts of things. As tourism spokesperson it has been brought to my attention that guidebooks such as Lonely Planet describe Dublin as filthy.

We all know about the dumping problems throughout the country and action needs to be taken to tackle them. I am not the environment spokesperson, but there is a solution to alleviate some of the problems with litter. I could not help but notice that quite a few people are observing this debate and, without meaning to insult anyone in the Visitors Gallery, I presume that most of them are over the age of 18 and will therefore remember when we had money-back bottles. I remember as a child that I collected them at every chance I got, because one used to get 5p on a bottle. It was a very good way for a young fellow to make a few pounds, but it was also a very good way of recycling.

Sadly, money-back bottles were thrown out. It was considered progress to have one and a half or two litre plastic bottles, which bring with them a number of environmental problems. They are difficult to recycle, and the rings sometimes become caught up in the gullets of birds, fish and mammals. My main point is that there is no reason money-back bottles cannot be reintroduced. The same is true of the idea of money-back cans, which are in use throughout the European Union - in Sweden, Finland, Germany, Denmark and other countries.

Denmark is a case in point. The Danish went one step further. Until 1996, the Danes would not even allow cans to be used in their country. They insisted that everything be reusable rather than recyclable. The European Commission, in its packaging directive of 1998, said that the Danes had to use cans. Now the Danes have a levy on cans, with a 10% to 48% deposit payable on recyclable items such as cans and bottles. The same is true of Sweden. I had the opportunity to visit Stockholm where one enters a supermarket with one's beer can or bottle and shoves it into a machine which prints out a receipt allowing the bearer to a certain amount off groceries.

We have the reputation of being a clean, green country, but at the same time we are in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water and discouraging repeat tourists at a time when the economy is going down the Swanee because of the dirty - increasingly, filthy - nature of our country as a tourist destination. It would make sense to do anything in our power that would not impose any cost on the Exchequer to ensure that we become a little cleaner.

Every town has its drinkers, whether under age or not, going down to the fields with their cans. I will not get into a conversation about under age drinking tonight. However, if all the people of a certain age around the country had to pay an extra 20 to 50 cent on their cans, I guarantee they would not be leaving them at the bottom of a field or in the local park. They would collect them and even look for those of other people. The same is true of bottles. We might have the opportunity to make the recycling of bottles viable again in this country. The Greens maintain that the closure of the Irish Glass Bottle plant at Ringsend was a tragedy as now we must export the majority of our glass across the Border to Fermanagh.

A market will exist as long as the Government commits some of its legislative power to making it work. To help the country to be a little cleaner regarding cans and bottles, I ask the Minister of State to pass on to the Minister, Deputy Cullen, the fact that there is support in schools throughout my constituency and elsewhere for recycling. Local councils sometimes charge for the privilege, but if the Minister were to introduce a charge for glass bottles and cans at whatever level he felt equitable, I guarantee that he would solve some of the dumping problems overnight and encourage recycling which I believe would double or treble. I ask the Minister to consider the suggestion, given that its administration would not incur significant cost for the Exchequer.

 

Minister of State, Noel Ahern(Environment Dept.)  
As Deputy Gogarty says, his idea is not new. I am surprised that he can remember when one got one's money back. I thought that it was reserved for such fellows as myself, who might have been around for a little longer. It was something of a bonanza at that time. I am not entirely sure that young children nowadays would be as dedicated to chasing a few bob as we might have been a few decades ago.
The image of Ireland as a clean environment is important to us all, but particularly to those in the tourism sector. We all have a role to play, not only in maintaining that image, but also in actively promoting its profile both nationally and internationally. Article 15 of EU Directive 94|62|EC on packaging and packaging waste permits EU member states to use economic instruments to facilitate the achievement of their targets thereunder regarding the recovery and recycling of packaging waste. The use of economic instruments has now become more widespread in EU countries as a means of improving waste management practices.
As the Deputy knows, my Department introduced an environmental levy on plastic bags on 4 March 2002, something that some other EU countries will by now regard with awe and threaten to imitate. The levy's primary purpose was to influence consumer behaviour directly with a view to minimising the use of plastic bags dispensed at retail outlets and lessening their impact on the environment as a highly visible component of litter. The imposition of the environmental levy on plastic bags has been an overwhelming success, with a reduction in excess of 90% in their use and a subsequent corresponding impact on the visible environment.

An Agreed Programme for Government states that consideration will be given to the extension of the levy on plastic bags to other areas such as non-reusable packaging. I am actively considering the issues involved, but final decisions have not yet been taken on the items which should be targeted as a priority in that regard. A decision to introduce a levy or, as the Deputy suggests, deposit and refund scheme, on any material would require considerable analysis and evaluation and would need, inter alia, to take account of the life-cycle analysis of the material in question and effects on the operation of existing successful initiatives, such as Repak. I will, however, keep the use of glass bottles and cans under review and will consider whether further arrangements are required to improve their collection and recovery and minimise their use where possible.

I also bring Members' attention to the new Waste Management (Packaging) Regulations 2003, which revise or replace previous regulations made in 1997 and subsequent amending regulations made in 1998. The new packaging regulations are intended to facilitate Ireland's achievement of the 50% packaging waste recovery target by the end of 2005, as set out in the EU directive on packaging and packaging waste. The regulations came into effect on 1 March 2003 and introduced a requirement that all producers participating in bringing packaging on to the Irish market must segregate packaging waste arising on their own premises into specified waste streams, such as waste glass, paper, aluminium, steel, fibreboard, wood and plastic sheeting, and have it collected by authorised operators for recycling. That provides that such specified waste can no longer be landfilled and will have a significant impact on future expansion of our recycling efforts.

I am sure Deputy Gogarty is already aware of most of this information, but I will pass on his comments to the Minister, Deputy Cullen, although I am not sure if he will take us right back to the days the Deputy spoke about.
back to top
Disabilities Bill 29|05|03  
I refer to more promised legislation and some of the media spin that seems to be going on. There was an article in a newspaper last week which I assume refers to the education for persons with disabilities Bill. However, it had turned into the educational disadvantage Bill. Perhaps the Ta´ naiste might tell us which Bill will come before the House in the next few weeks? Will it be a watered-down Bill including access to education for all as well as for those suffering from disabilities, or is the latter group to have its own Bill? That issue must be clarified. Regarding forthcoming legislation, last year, just before the Bill was taken from the roster, there were major complaints in the Seanad that it had been rushed through at breakneck speed. Will we be given the Bill in good time in the Seanad and the Da´ il so that we can analyse it and have some intelligent discourse rather than haveto criticise the Government for not having brought it quickly enough? We would rather criticize the Government for the inadequacies of the Bill. However, the Government has had a year to put it together, so we hope that it will not be so inadequate. Perhaps the Ta´ naiste might tell us if it will come soon and whether we will have enough time?

 

back to top
Immigration Bill 29|05|03  


Mr. Gogarty: I am not an expert on immigration but I was interested in speaking on the
Bill in my capacity as tourism spokesperson. One development I have noticed in that role is the reports of different publications about this country I have already quoted in the Da´ il the Lonely Planet guide to Dublin which describes Ireland as a filthy, racist country. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly racist and this is partially the fault of the Government through its policies of not promoting a more inclusive society and not having a more sensible view on immigration As I said, I am a beginner when it comes to immigration issues and racism, but sometimes being a beginner means one does not have inherent prejudices. My only inherent prejudice is that I am similar to other Irish people who have racist tendencies, but I try not to have them. Even discriminating positively towards a foreign person is a form of inverse racism. The sooner we treat people, no matter where they are from, as people and recognise their rights, the better.

The Amnesty International report on this country which was released recently stated that it was concerned about racist violence, harassment of ethnic minorities and the inadequacy of legislation in this area. Amnesty called for an increased, independent monitoring body to investigate and monitor racism and discrimination.
There is talk about the establishment of the refugee advisory board, which I welcome, but it does not go far enough.

The report went on to say that for the first time asylum seekers were detained during 2002 under the 1996 Refugee Act. The Gardai detained large numbers of rejected asylum seekers in July and the Government announced plans to increase forcible deportations. In May of last year, the Bill under discussion, which includes provisions to penalise carriers allowing asylum seekers into the country, lapsed because of the
general election. It has been reintroduced and is being discussed now.

My colleague, Deputy Boyle, mentioned the Human Rights Commission in his contribution and its submission to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights on aspects of the Bill. The commission stated in its submission that, with the UNHCR and others working with refugees and asylum seekers, it believed there is a number of areas where the Bill may breach important international protocols, including Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Among the points made by the commission were that section 2 of the Bill proposes to penalise transporters bringing in aliens without proper travel documentation or entry permits. The Bill does not foresee any offences related to asylum, but the commission comments on that. I will deal with that later. The Bill introduces a number of measures, such as the determination of withdrawal in relation to applicants who have failed to comply with procedural
requirements and applicants who have voluntarily withdrawn their applications, determination of refusal to grant refugee status in respect of claims deemed to be withdrawn, allocation of powers of prioritisation of cases to the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Chairman of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal to speed up the processing of asylum claims, and provision between the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and the UNHCR for the resettlement of mandate refugees. The most important point the Human Rights Commission made related to liability of carriers. While carrier sanctions might be a legitimate immigration tool, such measures might also interfere with the ability of persons at risk of persecution to gain access to safety. States that have recourse to carrier sanctions should implement them in a manner consistent with international rights and refugee protection principles, notably, as Deputy Boyle said, Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which, as the Minister is no doubt aware, accords each person the right to seek asylum, and Article 31 of the 1951 United Nations refugee convention which recognises that some refugees might enter a country of refuge without proper documentation. Circumstances might prevent them from obtaining valid paperwork before fleeing. Obviously a refugee who is being persecuted does not have his or her paperwork together. He or she is not a tourist but a refugee, and that is something that should be taken into account. Article 33 of the convention prohibits states from imposing sanctions on people who are forced to flee serious threats to their lives or liberty and who cannot arrange for passports, visas or other documentation prior to flight. By preventing asylum seekers with inadequate documentation from travelling to Ireland, the Government risks contravening Article 33 of the convention refoulement of refugees to situations of danger. Amnesty International cautions against the implementation of the main thrust of the Bill — carrier sanctions — because such restrictions will only drive asylum seekers into the hands of traffickers and smugglers and will lead to other dangerous modes of transport being used. I would be interested in the Minister’s opinion on this if he has not already stated it. Such sanctions, Amnesty states, will not stop people coming to the country. We have seen the use of containers which have put the lives of asylum seekers, refugees and economic migrants at risk, and that is precisely because of measures such as those in the Bill. Other EU countries have had similar laws for years and their experience demonstrates that carrier sanctions do not decrease the number of people arriving with improper documentation or hinder the efforts of traffickers and smugglers. If the Government introduces these carrier sanctions, more men, women and children will die in circumstances such as those endured by the Kurds who arrived in Wexford a few years ago. While these people thought they were going to Britain, they tragically ended up in Ireland. These carrier sanctions will only add to the problems. Section 2(7) states, ‘‘A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of \3,000.’’ In many cases people will not have any documentation. How will officials be able to tell at source if a person is a refugee or an asylum seeker without giving them a chance to prove that fact? In many cases, people are turned away without being assessed. I now want to make some general points about the type of legislation that can be introduced to make Ireland a little less racist. Constituents often comment that refugees or asylum seekers receive a \3,000 social welfare cheque to purchase a car. No matter how much one explains otherwise, the myth is being perpetuated. I raise this point as I hope the media will pick up on this and nail this myth once and for all. The Department has nailed this myth on several occasions and I hope the Minister will help to nail it now. A considerable number of constituents from various social backgrounds believe that favourable treatment is given to people of a darker skin colour. Obviously those with refugee status that have been granted rent allowance have the same entitlements as anyone else and this is as it should be. Asylum seekers do not have the same entitlements. There needs to be clarity about the diversity of people from various countries and cultures that
are working and studying here and are not trying to defraud the State of its social welfare largesse. I do not know why anyone would want to come here given the lack of progress in the provision of social welfare and education. That is a debate f or another day. I suggest that an information campaign be undertaken outlining the diversity that exists in the country and nailing some of thecommon myths such as those I outlined earlier. One person heard about cheques for purchasing cars from an ‘‘Auntie Nellie’’ who knew someone working in the social welfare office. This is how racism is perpetuated. Racism is also perpetuated by draconian measures such as this which penalise carriers. This will not lead to an increase in the number of genuine refugees coming here or a decrease in those that are less genuine. It will drive the issue underground and lead to more illegal trafficking. In many cases, people that come here do not
realise they are coming to Ireland, they just land here. As we have seen, sometimes they are dead when get here. Does the Minister want more blood on his hands? More clarity needs to be given. Another issue that gets on people’s goat is the timeframe.

Mr. McDowell: If the Deputy is calling for a responsible debate, why talk about me having blood on my hands?

Mr. Gogarty: I welcome the chance for discourse. The Minister is responsible for this area and if someone dies due to a lack of proper enforcement of the law, or lack of proper laws, it is ultimately up to him.

Mr. McDowell: Deputy Sargent got into trouble for talking about this regarding Iraq and the Deputy should stop.

Mr. Deasy: The Minister advocated Operation Hyphen where many men ended up in squad cars.

Mr. Gogarty: I like the banter.

Mr. McDowell: I thank Deputy Deasy for joining this.

Mr. Gogarty: I welcome debate.

Mr. Deasy: Does the Minister have a response to my comment?

Mr. Gogarty: I would like to see if the Minister has a response to any measures that would process
more quickly the claims of asylum seekers. If the claims are properly processed in a short period
of time, we would not have people put into centres where they are excluded for a period of time and do not have the opportunity to learn the language and integrate into society if they are found to be genuine asylum seekers. A couple of years ago the Ta´ naiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, said
she would welcome 200,000 people to this country as there was plenty of work for all and the economy
was booming. I assume she meant 200,000 white, Anglo-Saxon people——

Mr. McDowell: This is disgraceful.

Mr. Gogarty: ——as the policies of the Government have not done anything to diminish racism.

Mr. McDowell: The Deputy’s speech is tinged with racism.

Mr. Gogarty: No.

Mr. McDowell: It is irresponsible.

Mr. Gogarty: I am asking the Minister to put something in motion that will tackle racism.

Mr. McDowell: The Deputy is waffling.

Acting Chairman (Ms O’Sullivan): Deputy Gogarty has the floor.

Mr. Gogarty: People are coming to me and pointing to coloured people that live near them
and saying that they are sponging off the State. Many of these people are actually working here
or are genuine refugees. Why do people have these prejudices?

Mr. McDowell: It is not because of anything I say, it is probably because of remarks the Deputy
makes.

Mr. Gogarty: Absolutely not. I have already described myself as having racist tendencies no
more than anyone else. We all have these tendencies; they are ingrained in us.

Mr. Durkan: The Deputy is speaking for himself.

Mr. Gogarty: As Ireland becomes more multicultural we will hopefully learn to deal with this better.

Mr. McDowell: The Deputy should not talk about blood on my hands.

Mr. Gogarty: The Minister should not exaggerate. I am saying he could have blood on his hands.
The Minister could play a more proactive and positive role toward multiculturalism and recognise the various ethnic groups and the difference between people working here, refugees and asylum seekers.

Mr. McDowell: Does the Deputy recognise the difference?

Mr. Gogarty: It is not coming out. Why do people have this perception?

Mr. Deasy: The Minister should allow the Deputy to speak. The Minister is good at lecturing
.
Mr. Gogarty: I like to hear the Minister lecturing. It is good as he is quoted in the Official Report and I do not mind being quoted in it either. As I said, I am not an expert on immigration policy. I am an ordinary Deputy from a constituency that has a variety of socio-economic groups. I am retelling what people have said to
me. This Bill does nothing to address the issue of processing claims more quickly. Nor does it do
anything to ensure that refugees and asylum seekers will come here and be safer.

Mr. McDowell: Has the Deputy read the Bill?

Mr. Gogarty: Yes. However, I am not an expert in this area. Deputy Cuffe is an expert in this area and he has already made a statement and proposed amendments. While I cannot be an expert in every aspect of policy, I am an expert on what my constituents are telling me. While my constituents have what they see as genuine fears, these are often fuelled by ignorance. This ignorance needs to be addressed. While the Minister may not have created racist Ireland — perhaps it was always there waiting for immigrants to come
— it is his responsibility to tackle racism head-on and welcome the increasingly multicultural nature of this society. Perhaps legislation could be changed, in consultation with other Ministers, so that people from outside the EU can come here and work if they so wish. The issue of asylum seekers and refugees is another matter. If a message was sent out that people from outside the EU can come and work here, although not be entitled to social welfare payments, they could fill jobs that are not being filled. Even though the economy is going down the Suwannee thanks to the negative policies of this PD-Fianna Fa´ il Government, there are jobs that are not being filled because people are not willing to do them. While we
already know what Deputy Harney has said about education and a highly-skilled workforce, I will not go into it now.

The main bone of contention my party has with this Bill relates to carrier liability. Will the Minister
propose another Bill to deal with immigrants and asylum seekers in a more positive frame? Is he prepared to get rid of carrier liability given that EU experience has shown that it does nothing to deter trafficking and may lead to more innocent people dying in their attempts to escape persecution? It might also affect economic migrants and one cannot blame them for wanting to come to a rich country like Ireland.We need to see some common sense. That iswhy I asked if the Minister wanted blood on hishands. I can foresee more tragedies involving containers. Rather than telling me off for not being justice spokesperson and not having a thorough knowledge of immigration issues, I would prefer if the Minister would address me as an
ordinary Deputy raising views on behalf of his constituents. Perhaps he will try to do something
about the inherent racism in this society, as it will affect issues that are in my portfolio. From the
point of view of my portfolio, it will affect areas such as tourism and education.
Will the Minister take a positive approach? My colleagues, Deputies Boyle and Cuffe, have
already gone into more detail on the Bill. I have reiterated that detail, but it is also important,
more generally, that we take a positive approach to tackling racism here.
Mr. Durkan: I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words on this legislation. Along
with a number of people in the House, I hope the debate on immigration, which requires regulation
and containment in law, can be dealt with in a civilised manner. We need to be very careful in
the House not to give a bad example. I listened to some of the speeches from the Government
side in the not too distant past and to say they were inflammatory and racist would be an understatement.
I am not pointing my finger at the Minister sitting opposite; I am merely pointing out the seriousness of what we may inadvertently or otherwise lead ourselves into. I hope in the course of the creation of this legislation we will always be extremely careful that nothing we say or do could be seen as a lead towards racism or could encourage the racist tendencies of some people. I do not accept that this is a racist nation. It sometimes suits public representatives and other agents to cast themselves as such in order to achieve popularity with certain elements of the electorate. Some of the things I have heard in the House in the past six months have made me feel ashamed that we were participating in a national parliamentary debate on an issue which is highly sensitive and highly charged and is regarded by most people in most countries as an area in which we have to be politically correct. I am not saying we need to go overboard or that we should flood the country with unlimited numbers of undocumented visitors. It is a simple fact of life that we
either do the thing according to the rules, or we keep our mouths shut. This legislation deals with the question of licensed carriers and penalties. I am not certain that the penalties as proposed will challenge the unfortunate, highly illegal and disgraceful practice by forces outside the State, possibly with the
help of some inside the State, of herding innocent people into wagons and bringing them long distances,
sometimes with catastrophic results, including, on more than one occasion, loss of life. This has happened not only here but in the UK and in other jurisdictions. I hope the provisions in the Bill will deal with this and will not militate against the victims, but I am not certain they will. It is obvious that mafia
types have set up a practice, in Eastern Europe and beyond, whereby they undertake to move
unfortunate, poor people to different countries. These people, who have no influence at all, feel that by paying exorbitant amounts of money to a so-called agency, they are investing their money in a good cause and ensuring that the agency will look after them

 
back to top
back to Dail Speeches
back to home