27th March, 2002
Dr. Henry: I welcome the Minister to the House and I had better welcome the one part of the Bill that I approve of, which is the section that amends the Refugee Act whereby refugees and asylum seekers no longer need the permission of the Minister before they can speak to anyone about their life story or condition. I objected to the original provision very strongly when it was being considered. I said it was a terrible imposition on people to have to seek the Minister's approval before they were in a position to say anything, even to a member of the public.
The rest of the Bill is appalling. I acknowledge that there is a serious problem regarding the trafficking of people on an international scale, but the Bill lumps asylum seekers and the trafficking of people who are economic refugees. I do not know how the two speakers on the other side of the House thought that asylum seekers could possibly have valid documents with them. I have had much work dealing with asylum seekers, many of whom are in the medical profession and have had to flee their own country, having refused to carry out operations such as the amputation of limbs. They did not have valid documents when they fled because they would not have been allowed to cross the borders if they had tried.
Some of this is the most two-faced legislation I have seen introduced in a long time. I am particularly angry about the section 2 (1)(c) which states:
that each non-national on board the vehicle seeking to land in the State or to pass through a port in the State in order to travel to another state has with him or her a valid passport or other equivalent document which establishes his or her identity and nationality and, if required by law, a valid Irish transport visa or a valid Irish visa.
How can anyone think that in these countries people are in a position apply to their ministry for justice for such visas? It is ridiculous.
I am most annoyed about how hypocritical we are being about this. For the past few weeks in this House, several Members - particularly Senator Lanigan - have appealed on behalf of a woman who became pregnant and was sentenced to death in a state in northern Nigeria for alleged adultery. As the Minister and Senators are aware, sharia law has been introduced into northern Nigeria in 13 or 17 states. It is a serious problem for them and is causing a great deal of dissension between the Muslim and Christian communities. I am sure there are some good points in sharia law but most people in this country are less than enthusiastic about stoning to death women who are accused of becoming pregnant outside marriage. There was uproar about it and people were encouraged to write to the Nigerian ambassador to say how upset they were. I was one of those who did and was relieved to hear that the woman had been given a reprieve so she could suckle her child but was to be buried up to her neck and stoned to death as soon as the child was weaned. I am further relieved to hear that the woman has now been given a total reprieve.
There is another woman in the same situation in a nearby town. What would happen if that woman managed to escape with her baby into Mali, crossing the country with a friendly camel driver or in a jeep, eventually reaching Freetown on the west coast of Africa and managing to get on a boat to Ireland? In Freetown nobody knows who is who, so she could give money to a trafficker for false documents because she could certainly not apply for a passport and a visa to go to Ireland in somewhere like Ibadan - I have never heard of a suggestion so ridiculous in my life.
The woman is fleeing for her life, on a boat bound for Ireland and manages to get into the port of New Ross where she crawls with her child from a container. The Irish people have been pleading for her life for months, so she expects a warm welcome but is instead told to get back on the boat and get out of the country. This is truly ridiculous. We must be either compassionate for people who are in such situations or we must stop pretending by writing letters to the Nigerian ambassador.
People from Somalia and Iraq have told me their stories. They gave money to traffickers and got into the country on false papers. They have been allowed to stay because they were asylum seekers and their conditions were shocking. One man however has not been allowed to stay - he is a doctor who fled because he refused to carry out amputations in the Iraqi army.
At the same time, President Bush is telling us these regimes are supporting terrorism and must be bombed. We are told we must support him and that we are either with him or against him. I agree that these regimes do not seem to have the same views on democracy as we do. However, what do we say if one of those people who is trying to support democracy against the regime manages to get out and come here with false papers? They are being told, "Sorry, you better get back on the boat." I know we are agreeing with President Bush that "you are either with us or against us", but we are being a bit milk and water about this matter.
Senator Moylan said that Irish people bring their passports and visas with them when they leave here and do not travel illegally. I have never known of anyone having to flee for their lives from Ireland, however, apart from fleeing the IRA, loyalist organisations and drug dealers. We have spoken out strongly about the people who had to leave Northern Ireland. It is outrageous and the IRA should allow them to return, but one cannot compare both situations.
I have found that some refugees or asylum seekers will not even contact their relations. Some of them are medical practitioners and the Medical Council has tried to see if they could obtain documents to prove that they are doctors so they could get jobs here. Half the health service is dependent on non-EU doctors, so we would be enthusiastic about having some of these highly qualified people working here. Naturally, the Medical Council has to be careful about who they allow in and they are requested to produce copies of their qualifications and registration details. Some of them even have postgraduate degrees but they are too terrified to seek such documentation from their relations, some of whom have no idea where in the world they are based. They know that in doing so they would place their relatives' lives at risk. The idea of having to have valid passports and visas is patently ridiculous because, having fled their homes, asylum seekers are not in a position to produce such documentation.
Amnesty International has pointed out that the right to asylum and the principle of non-refoulement - not returning people to countries from which they have fled - requires that access to the territory of asylum countries, as well as to a fair and satisfactory asylum procedure, is ensured. I do not see how this legislation can support that. How on earth are carriers supposed to be experts in knowing the difference between valid and invalid passports? I gather that it is difficult, even for those involved in immigration control, to spot the difference because the passports have been so cleverly forged.
Many other countries have run into trouble when introducing similar legislation. I appreciate the difficulties the Minister has had regarding the large number of people arriving in the last few years, but we are now coping with them in a faster and improved manner. It is seriously wrong, however, to ask people who are fleeing for their lives to do the impossible by not allowing them to have access to our territory so that we can properly assess their status.
Pregnant refugees and asylum seekers have now become ashamed of their condition in this country. They think people believe they came here purposely to take advantage of the constitutional right of any child born in Ireland to become an Irish citizen. As I pointed out when discussing the case of the woman in northern Nigeria, some of these women had to flee because they are pregnant. We had 15 cases of concealed pregnancy delivered in the Rotunda Hospital last year, the major of whom were refugees or asylum seekers. They tried to keep their pregnancies secret from everyone until they came to the time of delivery, which is unlike the case of someone arriving here just to give birth. I realise that is a problem and that some people almost go into labour on the other side of the Irish Sea before coming here to give birth. However, those women did not insert the provision into the Constitution, where a child born here is entitled to Irish citizenship; we did it ourselves and reinforced it recently in the Good Friday Agreement. It would be a good idea, therefore, if we stopped blaming those women. It is unfortunate that we always seem to blame those who are trying to escape the most appalling circumstances rather than trying to do something for them.
As regards this legislation, I am also worried about the situation regarding unaccompanied minors. We know that this problem has become more prevalent, although unaccompanied minors are being better dealt with than before. A Nigerian woman is currently before the courts suspected of trafficking in this area. We can cope with this issue, however, and do not need legislation like this. I am willing to give the Minister credit for the fact that we have improved our handling of such matters. It has been a difficult task because it all came upon the Minister very suddenly. It would be better to improve our refugee and asylum procedures rather than introducing legislation like this, which I will oppose.
Visit the Irish Government Website for the full text of this speech: Click Here
