If anyone else had brought this issue before the Assembly, it would have been treated with more seriousness. However, it is either a joke or the height of hypocrisy for an organisation like Sinn Féin/IRA to move such a motion. This is an organisation with a Fascist attitude towards its fellow citizens, yet it is complaining about the way in which asylum seekers are treated in Northern Ireland.

While one may have sympathy for the plight of asylum seekers, serious questions must be asked about those who want to jump on this particular bandwagon. According to the Law Society, 400 asylum cases arise in Northern Ireland each year. However, the number of people who have become asylum seekers as a result of thuggish organisations like Sinn Féin/IRA is vast in comparison to that figure. Organisations like Sinn Féin/IRA have created at least 800 exiles or refugees. Did they raise any concerns about that? Here is an organisation that has been responsible for making hundreds of people exiled, forcing them to seek asylum across the world. Have there been any apologies for that? No. Has Sinn Féin/IRA ever admitted that it was wrong to exile its co-religionists? No. Has it issued a statement that not only condemns such behaviour, but tells those whom they have exiled and made into refugees that they can come home to their families? No.

There is no use in Sinn Féin/IRA's coming to the Assembly to complain about the plight of asylum seekers, and bleating that more should be done for them, while it has created the very same circumstances for others itself. What about all the people whom it has turned out of their homes, forcing them to become refugees? These people are forgotten victims of our troubles. Here is an organisation that was quick to get its prisoners out of jail, yet it has said nothing about the refugees it helped create.

I might add that those who signed the Belfast Agreement said nothing about it either. According to evidence given last year, in the past, one person was being forced into exile from Northern Ireland every week. Of course, Sinn Féin/IRA denied that this was the case, but it would, would it not? Until this country is no longer a paramilitary haven, or a Mafia-run Province from which people are exiled on a whim, it will be difficult to get it right for those seeking asylum from other countries.

To engage in an exercise such as this is an attempt to create an illusion of order when there is chaos. It is an illusion created by those who want to turn attention away from themselves and their human rights abuses while claiming that asylum seekers are being denied proper treatment here in Northern Ireland. What a catalogue of human rights abuses there has been at the hands of Sinn Féin/IRA.

Does the Member agree that something is seriously wrong given that young people have had to seek sanctuary and asylum in churches across the Province because they have been living in fear of their lives from IRA/Sinn Féin? Does she also agree that the proposal before us, from a party representing IRA/Sinn Féin, is the height of hypocrisy?

I thank my Colleague for his intervention. I totally concur with his views.

The hypocrisy is evident here given the way in which Northern exiles have been treated, and the treatment that asylum seekers receive, is a matter that needs urgent attention. I take this opportunity to ask that the Law Society compile a report on that issue of exiles. It was very quick to furnish us with briefing papers for today's debate.

I would usually support humane conditions for asylum seekers. However, given that that party moved this motion not out of genuine concern for those people but simply to trot out ad nauseam the usual anti-British propaganda, I cannot support it.

Mrs Robinson referred on a number of occasions to hypocrisy. However, judging from her final couple of sentences, for her to suggest that she may agree with the motion but cannot support it because of who proposed it comes close to hypocrisy itself in my book.

I share some of the concerns raised about the past activities of some of those people associated with the party that has moved the motion.

Will the Member give way?

Give me a chance to start.

It is time we accepted at least that if there is a motion before the House we should consider what it says and not use it as an opportunity to slag off other people. I hope that when Mr C Murphy winds up he will give us some view of his concerns about asylum seekers who have left this island in more recent years than the Presbyterian victims of establishment oppression over two centuries ago or the famine victims of a century and a half ago.

I applaud much of what Mr C Murphy said on the report - and I do not intend to repeat it - because it tackles a wide issue concerning the entire way in which asylum seekers are treated in this society, throughout the UK and on the rest of this island. There is no doubt that we have huge problems, such as the backlog of applications, created in large part by Government policy. People know that it will take so long to get adjudication that they are keener to come to the UK than they might otherwise be. It is certainly a pull factor in some respects because of the inadequacies of Government policy.

Language, culture and past historical links mean that Britain, and to a lesser extent Ireland, has become a haven for some asylum seekers. Despite all that, we know from statistics in the last year that the UK was only tenth in the league of EU countries accepting asylum seekers. That is a small number compared with other countries.

The motion concentrates rightly on the Law Centre report 'Sanctuary in a Cell'. I also add my congratulations to the Law Centre and, in particular, to Victoria Tennant for producing an excellent report which highlights both the legal aspects and the human suffering of the way in which asylum seekers are treated. We should remember that it is not just in prison that asylum seekers have problems. In many cases, asylum seekers outside prison live in deplorable conditions. Most of them live in houses of multiple occupation (HMOs). The last statistic that I saw showed that 17% of the houses were unfit and 80% of them were fire risks.

Asylum seekers do not receive the same social security payments as any other person. They have to contend with the demeaning voucher system. Last week, J Sainsbury - a firm not unconnected with the Government - felt it necessary to object to the administration of the voucher system because of its inadequacies and the unfair way in which it treated people. Perhaps the Government believes that these difficult, awkward, tough measures will deter asylum seekers from entering the United Kingdom. However, even the conditions that people might endure in Maghaberry and Magilligan will not deter those who have come from worse conditions in such countries as Afghanistan or many of the central and east African countries. The problems and inadequacies in the treatment of asylum seekers will persist while the Government makes it almost impossible for them to legally enter the United Kingdom. However, after a period of detention, those who do manage to reach the United Kingdom will remain.

It is a back-to-front policy, which leads to intolerable conditions for people in many circumstances. Those people awaiting adjudication have multiple problems: lack of interpreters; lack of schooling for children; lack of proper healthcare; lack of an adequate diet. Those problems are largely exacerbated when one member of the family is detained in prison. It is a symptom of the institutional racism that exists in Northern Ireland and throughout these islands and it results in the demeaning treatment that many asylum seekers receive. Undoubtedly, the sort of institutional racism that is being perpetrated at Dover every day is also perpetrated on people with black skins who get off a train at Connolly Station. It is time that the Assembly stated that it finds that treatment unacceptable, whether or not it has direct control over it. That racism is manifested in unrealistic demands placed upon those seeking entry to Britain.

Over the weekend, when I was thinking about this debate, I was given a leaflet produced by one of the charities that works with refugees. The front cover reads

They will also need warm clothes. That is the sort of decision that some people who arrive in this country face. They arrive with those difficulties. The Assembly should be objecting to those situations and making its views very clear. The Assembly should be working with other bodies across these islands to promote a diverse and pluralist society in Northern Ireland. This island already has a degree of cultural diversity with communities of first- and second-generation migration. Those people came from a wide range of backgrounds from across the world.

When it has suited the Government, economic migrants have been welcomed. Look at the Health Service. Even primary care and rural areas of Northern Ireland depend to a considerable extent on those who have come from overseas. Asylum seekers - whatever their reason for seeking asylum in these islands - should be treated with the same dignity and given the same rights as those who have come and been welcomed by the Government. I applaud the motion as it has been presented.

The SDLP supports the motion. It is a timely motion, because this is the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of the convention relating to the status of refugees. That convention sets the standards in this area and forms a central part of a growing body of international human rights law.

The focus and central thesis of that body of legislation - that there is an inherent dignity in every human person - must be highlighted. Europe receives a large number of refugees, but only a minority of those in the world as a whole. There are many other regions of the world that shoulder a disproportionate responsibility. However, in a global context the Assembly's response will be carefully monitored. History will judge us harshly if we fail to respond humanely to contemporary refugee flows. The SDLP is fully committed to protecting the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers, and we recognise the special plight of those who flee persecution and make it to Northern Ireland. We welcome the Law Centre's report and commend it for its work, not only in the report, but in the whole area of human rights. We are convinced that Governments should adopt alternative mechanisms for dealing with asylum seekers and refugees.

Detention should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances. This issue has been neglected for too long. Detention in prison is a profoundly unacceptable way of addressing the needs of those fleeing persecution. Its extended use in Britain and parts of Northern Ireland breaches international standards. We must never forget that those who seek asylum are often fleeing from the most harsh treatment elsewhere. We call on the Government to rethink their current restrictive approach and to develop policy in line with the recommendations contained in the report.

We welcome the idea of an advisory body on immigration and asylum. We agree that the Home Office should be designated a public body and should be responsible for the purposes of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. We also believe that the Prison Service, like other public bodies, should have a comprehensive race-relations policy in place. We have stressed the importance of developing an anti-racism policy in all of Ireland, North and South.

The SDLP, therefore, supports the main thrust of the report and we ask the Government to respond swiftly to its recommendations. I cannot stress enough that asylum seekers are not criminals. They are exercising a universally recognised right which is contained in article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 which allows them to seek asylum and refuge in Northern Ireland. The act of seeking asylum in itself cannot be considered a crime.

In this the fiftieth anniversary year of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, we emphasise the enduring importance of that legislation and, particularly, the valuable work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). At present, the UNHCR is undertaking a process of global consultations. We hope that that will result in a far better system of international refugee protection which will afford priority to the human rights of all refugees and asylum seekers. However, any system which might be put in place must adhere to the numerous international standards which currently apply. The 1951 convention defines a refugee as someone with a well founded fear of persecution.

Members on all sides of the Assembly have seen people from our community, our neighbours and, in many cases, family members fleeing from persecution, from fear and from threat of violence. We are the very people who should know, better than anybody else, that to be received with compassion and humanity is an absolute expectation that any refugee who comes to Northern Ireland must have. We must respond to that. There are many other international standards. The UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (1988) states that all persons under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be treated in a humane manner and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) deals with the right of everyone to liberty and security of the person. Liberty is a fundamental human right which is recognised in all major human rights instruments. The detaining of asylum seekers and refugees in Britain and Northern Ireland is an absolute affront to those international standards and rights.

We must take this opportunity to encourage everyone in our society to take a responsible attitude towards this issue. In every part of civic society, in public life and in the media we are collectively responsible for the climate we create on this island. We must all work towards creating a society tolerant of others, which has no time and no place for racism and xenophobia - either outside or inside this Chamber. Under the Good Friday Agreement we are committed to the protection and vindication of the human rights of all. The new beginning so many of us want to see in Northern Ireland must include human rights and equality for all of us, including those people who come to seek refuge with us. The human rights values, which we, on all sides, are committed to, must have an impact also on the lives of refugees and asylum seekers.

In the SDLP we firmly agree that the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is correct when he states that detention should normally be avoided. Detention involves extreme hardship for any individual fleeing persecution. It is therefore profoundly disturbing that any person who is fleeing persecution in another state should come to Northern Ireland only to find himself detained. Detention has been criticised, not only by the UNHCR, but by the UN Committee Against Torture and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture.

Is the hon Member trying to suggest that those who come here seeking asylum should not be detained anywhere? Everyone would accept that if someone has to be detained he should be detained in humane conditions, but it seems that the Member is suggesting that all asylum seekers should simply be allowed out into the community without any form of restriction.

I am suggesting that a whole range of alternative support mechanisms to ensure that these people are treated properly and equitably needs to be put in place in this country and within this jurisdiction. Detention should be considered only as a last resort and in those circumstances. That is not my view or the SDLP's view; that is the conclusion of almost every international body dealing with human rights.

We could recommend this report simply because it highlights an issue often neglected in Northern Ireland. However, we must also recognise that it proposes a range of practical measures. It clearly addresses the problem and contains concrete solutions. It is therefore a very timely and useful contribution to this debate. The SDLP firmly believes that detention should only be used in very exceptional circumstances. Asylum seekers have the right to seek refuge in Northern Ireland and should never be treated like criminals for doing so.

Ultimately, however, I recognise that we all have to work towards eradicating the root causes of flight from persecution, fear and deprivation. Because of the way we treat each other and treat issues like this in this Chamber and around these desks, I would have thought that we might be able to establish a model for others to deal with this problem elsewhere.

The issue before the House is a reserved matter. Nonetheless, it gives our community many concerns - not least because the motion has its origins in the Sinn Féin/IRA quarter. The issue of asylum seekers is quite emotive. We have noted, in recent times, the concerns of residents in areas of southern England, and a number of horrific tragedies which have led to many deaths. An asylum seeker is currently easy prey for those who set out deliberately to exploit the vulnerable. We can readily identify the likes of unscrupulous hauliers who, if they so desire, can charge enormous amounts of money to smuggle human beings in horrendous conditions across frontiers. Evil drug barons will seduce them into becoming couriers with the incentive of a new life. One could continue this with a catalogue of horrendous stories but, on many occasions, considering their ordeals, a prison cell with support services can be very acceptable.

The asylum seeker has become a black market commodity, something to be bought or sold, used or disregarded in the same way that we have seen so many of our young people in Northern Ireland used and abused by Sinn Féin/IRA. Indeed, the Member who brings this motion before the House knows no bounds of hypocrisy. On one hand he appears to be championing the cause of the individual who struggles against oppression, but on the other hand he belongs to an organisation that is inextricably linked to a fully armed terrorist organisation committed to imprisoning people against their will and dishing out punishment beatings, not to mention driving people out of the community to seek refuge in other countries. The mover of the motion is, unfortunately, part of a system of asylum makers.

The motion can be broken down into two issues. First, the use of Magilligan and Maghaberry as detention centres. The Northern Ireland Prison Service has acknowledged that prison facilities are not appropriate for the accommodation of asylum seekers - we can see that in the Law Centre (NI) report - and that it is unable to effectively and comprehensively meet their needs. However, we should also note that, where possible, the prison service has genuinely attempted to adapt facilities and services to the needs of those detained. I believe, looking at the present figures and circumstances, that that is the best we can expect, particularly as the current Home Office review may recommend transferring detainees to facilities in Scotland. That would further separate families and stop them from joining the communities they wish to join.

Members should be aware that, for most of the time, the asylum seeker is an unknown quantity. Let us not forget that in some cases one country's asylum seeker is another country's terrorist. We know nothing of their backgrounds or activities, or what they may have been involved with in their country of origin. It is only right that all precautionary measures and methods are adopted until such time as a satisfactory conclusion is reached in each case. Although we have an unsatisfactory situation at the moment, it is probably best kept in place in lieu of anticipated Home Office directives.

The plight of the asylum seeker is one with which I have much sympathy. All that any decent human being could wish for is to be able to live and raise a family without fear or prejudice; to be able to work and prosper and be in control of their own destiny. However, the second part of the motion calls on Government to devise and develop methods of expediting the application process. It must be acknowledged that the main cause of this problem can lie with the asylum seeker. I am surprised that the average period of detention until information is cleared is only 54 days. It has already been established that background information about most asylum seekers is lacking.

Most of them arrive in this country without official papers or identification. Even though those documents may have been in their possession when they left their country of origin, their papers somehow disappear once they are detained. Officials are then faced with the frustrating process of establishing an accurate picture, as in many cases false information is given. It may be that at a series of interviews conflicting answers are given, which makes the officers' jobs particularly awkward and the application process virtually impossible.

Members should remember that there are two sides to this difficult and sensitive issue. It is best left to the expertise of the Home Office, rather than the party/paramilitary organisation that brought forward this motion.

I have sympathy with the views expressed in the motion and by other Members. I believe that the origin of the motion is relevant. It is hypocritical for Sinn Féin to attempt to appear concerned about human rights, while not demonstrating that on the ground.

Genuine asylum seekers must be dealt with sympathetically and looked after. There are many people trying to bring normal democratic rights to their society who are being abused by dictators or by communist or extreme right-wing regimes. Society has a responsibility to assist those people whose lives have been put in jeopardy while trying to uphold democratic principles.

On the other hand, many who claim to be asylum seekers are moving for economic reasons. Such cases must be dealt with speedily, and economic migrants should be repatriated as soon as possible, so that assistance can be concentrated on the genuine asylum seekers. Both groups must be looked after sympathetically until such times as the authorities can establish which group an individual belongs to.

It is important to note that the motion has been tabled by Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin/IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries continue to abuse human rights in Northern Ireland. Such groups cannot simply say that that is something from their past that they have left behind. Sinn Féin has yet to prove that it has left its past behind.

The abuse of human rights continues. So-called punishment beatings are an abuse of an individual's body and can wreck someone's life forever. Both sets of paramilitaries continue to impose exclusions; people are forced to leave Northern Ireland and become asylum seekers elsewhere. Such people stay away; they are afraid to go back home. Sinn Féin has yet to address that problem, although it is still happening today. That is hypocrisy.

I can speak from the experience of my town; the actions of Republicans there should be carefully examined. Republicans have imposed exclusions on Nationalists and Unionists from Larne. Republicans should examine what has happened, and I would be interested to learn whether such actions, carried out in the name of Republicanism, take place with the blessing of Sinn Féin, or are carried out by individuals outside the Sinn Féin family. Whatever the case, Republicans in Larne have forced Nationalists to move out of Northern Ireland. A few days ago, there was a shotgun attack in Larne. My information is that that attack - on a Nationalist family - was carried out by Republicans from that estate. Republicans must decide whether they have left their past behind them, ceased the exclusion of citizens from Northern Ireland and adopted purely democratic principles.

The origin of the motion is important. I am sorry to say that, on this occasion, although I have sympathy with the motion, I cannot support it.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. English rule in Ireland gave us the penal laws and the famine. Millions of people were forced to leave the country to seek asylum. Many of those Irishmen and Irishwomen - Presbyterian and Catholic - made a new life in their new country. They also made a great contribution to the growth of those countries. Presbyterians who were forced to leave Ireland because of the penal laws became the founding fathers of the United States. People of the Irish diaspora - what the former President of Ireland, Mary Robinson, called the "fifth province" - are a major influence in the political, social and economic life of many nations. Many of those arriving here now are no different; they are seeking refuge from persecution and intolerance.

Iris Robinson and many others on the Unionist Benches seek to make this motion a political points-scoring exercise. We could all do that. For example, I could talk about the thousands of Catholics who were forced to move south in 1969 as a result of pogroms by the RUC and the B-Specials. Some of them, for all we know, may be sitting in this Chamber. However, we do know that the founder of the DUP, Dr Paisley, was a prime mover in the lead-up to the pogroms in 1969 and certainly all pogroms since.

This motion, a LeasCheann Chomhairle, is about justice, tolerance and human rights. Asylum seekers are fleeing from persecution in countries where the arms trade flourishes. Any refugee who tries to come to Britain or to the South of Ireland on his initiative will find humanitarianism in short supply when he arrives. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 has effectively torn up the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The Convention enabled people who had a fear of persecution on the grounds of political affiliation, race, religion, nationality or membership of a social group to seek refuge in foreign countries. Today those countries do not want refugees from Third World civil wars. Certainly, New Labour in England does not want them turning up there, no matter how much torture or persecution they have experienced.

The Act is intended to deter people from seeking asylum in Britain. Since the 1971 Immigration Act, the British authorities have used the imposition of visa requirements to prevent certain people from coming to Britain, and that legislation extends here. What is more important, if, under the new powers, an asylum seeker has already been refused leave to enter, he or she will automatically become an illegal immigrant on applying for asylum in Britain. The United Nations Convention on Human Rights has complained that the trend towards visa control may be in breach of the 1951 Convention.

The policy of deterrence continues when asylum seekers arrive here. The 1971 Immigration Act brought in the power to detain illegal immigrants, and that is happening here. Our prisons are full of innocent, persecuted people who are thrown into prison by virtue of this legislation as well as those under examination and those about to be deported.

In practice today, the Government are allowed to lock up hundreds of asylum seekers - often for many months at a time - who have committed no crime in this country. If they request bail, there is no presumption of liberty, and the Home Office requests sureties that they cannot afford. Many of these refugees do not understand why they are in prison or detention centres, and there is no limit to their detention.

The Government plan to extend their detention facilities. New legislation introduced a new procedure for those in prison. Detainees lose the right to go to court for a bail hearing. Instead, they are given a video link to a magistrate. There is no legal aid for representation, which means that detainees, who often speak no English, or a very poor level of the language, have to defend themselves.

The Human Rights Act 1998, a LeasCheann Chomhairle, which is supposed to prevent the deprivation of liberty, does not cover asylum seekers who have sought unauthorised entry, in other words, those without leave to enter without a passport.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the course of the rant we have just heard, the Member made a number of illegal allegations about another Member, whom she named. If she were to repeat those claims outside the House, she would find herself in court. I hope that the normal rule will apply and that the Member who was attacked will be able to make a personal statement when he is next in the Chamber.

Yes, my view is that the Member must not do that. It is not parliamentary, right or proper and I hope that she will not do so again.

A LeasCheann Comhairle, the trend for making allegations in the House has been set by the Member who has just spoken.

There is no mechanism to verify what an asylum seeker has said to a immigration officer, and there is little provision in the current procedures to account for trauma; for the long and difficult journeys; or for simple errors in recounting how asylum seekers enter this country. The current legislation is racist. Asylum seekers are the persecuted diaspora victims of the 21st century arms race. They are entitled to be treated as human beings in need of our care and protection. They do not deserve to be treated as criminals. If allowed, they can make a valuable contribution to the pluralist and diverse society that we seek to put in place.

The Member represents Sinn Féin, which claims to be an all-Ireland party. Will she not agree that many of the criticisms made of the United Kingdom law with respect to asylum seekers, which may or may not be valid, have been made equally forcibly about the situation south of the border in the Irish Republic?

If Dr Birnie had been listening, he would know that I said that at the beginning of my speech and that the proponent of the motion also said the same thing. Yes, we deplore the legislation in the South of Ireland every bit as much as we deplore it in Great Britain.

Writ large over this motion is the word "hypocrisy". The spokesman for the IRA who moved the motion no doubt has in his office a list of the thousands of innocent people in this Province, both Catholic and Protestant, who have been banished to Britain, to Europe and to north America by his organisation. If he had stood up and said that his organisation was going to issue an amnesty to those people, he could start to lecture us about human rights. How many thousands of people are there whose only way to hear of this debate is through the World Service on the radio or the Internet, because they can never return to Northern Ireland? Why can they never return to Northern Ireland? The reason is that his thugs will ensure that either their features are rearranged or they are murdered for returning.

What about the situation in Londonderry where one of his friends lured three of these people back who were promptly taken out to flats in the Bogside and had bullets put in their heads. That is how this organisation deals with asylum seekers. They are invited back and then murdered.

Frankly this motion cannot receive any support because of its proponent. It is hypocrisy, it is wrong and it is a disgrace.

Let us now look at the terms of the motion. Even if someone reasonable proposed the motion, like my Friend Mr Hay here, I still could not support it. We must ask why Home Office authorities have to detain immigrants and asylum seekers in the first place. Many decent people are genuinely seeking asylum from persecution. We have heard the sad tales from places like Kosovo and we have heard of the disgraceful persecution of Christians in Sudan and of ethnic minorities in places like India. We accept that that goes on. Those people are deserving cases who should receive asylum in western Europe. That we accept.

Unfortunately they are swamped by thousands if not millions of economic migrants who are moving from one part of the world to the other in order to get a better lifestyle. Statistics show that when the Home Office gets to the bottom of the various cases and checks their papers, they find that the main reason for the move is economic.

Two recent examples have emerged. There is a huge increase in the number of Chinese citizens applying to do degrees at universities, particularly in southern England, and especially in London. It has been discovered that in almost every case, the Chinese student obtains the necessary qualifications by falsehood in China, applies to a university in England, and then promptly drops out and disappears into the community, never to be seen again. In a recent BBC documentary it has been shown that many so-called immigrants seeking asylum use false addresses in Bosnia or other former Yugoslavian countries in order to get-[Interruption]. Mr Deputy Speaker, someone seems to be interrupting.

They use false addresses in the former Yugoslavian republics in order to try and hoodwink the British authorities into believing that they come from a country where there is genuine persecution, when they did not live there in the first place. They then get into the United Kingdom and disappear.

If every immigrant who came into this country agreed to stay in a certain place, where his movements could be traced and where the Home Office authorities could contact him, there would be no need for detention. However, the reality is that a huge proportion of those who are not checked up on simply disappear into immigrant communities throughout the United Kingdom. It is estimated that there are over 1 million illegal immigrants in the United Kingdom. That has led to a traffic in humanity, which is disgraceful and which we should not be encouraging.

The flow of immigrants to Northern Ireland is thankfully smaller than to any other part of the United Kingdom - I believe we dealt with 71 cases last year. It is unfortunately an essential element of the process that those people are detained in secure accommodation until their cases are dealt with. I accept that Magilligan, Maghaberry or some other prison, are not the best places to keep someone seeking asylum. We need an alternative, which has to be secure and humane. The crucial point is that the person must remain there until his case is assessed, or until a stage is reached when the Home Office can decide that that person will not simply drift away.

I have several more questions. If all of these people are genuine migrants, why do they pass through eight, nine or 10 democratic countries before they come to the United Kingdom? Why, for instance, does a Romanian leaving his country, not emigrate to Austria, Germany, Holland or France? There are any number of democratic countries, which are alternatives to Northern Ireland, or the United Kingdom in general. I have to suggest that one of the reasons why they pass through all those countries and come to the United Kingdom is that it is perceived that the range of social security benefits is better in the United Kingdom than elsewhere.

It indicates to me that a lot of this is simply about people wanting to better themselves economically. There is nothing wrong with wanting to do that, but I do not believe that we, as United Kingdom taxpayers, should pick up the bill for it.

The United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, is an overcrowded country. We have 56 million inhabitants. Frankly, we have enough difficulties trying to look after the socially deprived, the unemployed and the handicapped in our own community without a wave of economic immigrants coming from other parts of the world.

I wish to reiterate that I am not against the genuine, persecuted individual getting into Northern Ireland. Remember the contribution that the Huguenots have made to this society. We still see their contribution throughout areas like the Lagan Valley. They have made an important contribution. The Jewish community, which unfortunately is now dwindling in Northern Ireland, made a very significant contribution to the financial well-being of the Province. However, they were genuine, persecuted minorities. What we are facing at the moment, I am afraid, is not the same. Genuine people are welcome in the Province, but Northern Ireland simply cannot cope with a wave of economic migrants.

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am disappointed, but not surprised, at the response to the motion from some of the people on the opposite Benches. I had anticipated that, but I had hoped against hope, as I said in my own address. I chose not to make any political points against political parties. I see them running out now before we answer them - scurrying away from the truth and their racist rants, which were an embarrassment.

Thank God the Public Galleries were empty, especially when Mr Wells was speaking. Some of his xenophobic comments were an embarrassment to the House. Then these Members scurry out rather than listen to what we have to say.

I am sorry that that was the tone of the debate. The merits or demerits of the report published by the Law Centre, that has no political axe to grind, should have been debated. The fact that Sinn Féin proposed it rather than anyone else is merely an accident. Any Member of the House could have proposed it, and I dare say every Member would have supported it as well.

I will go through some of the responses. We had much of the same from Members from the DUP, which is sadly predictable. Mrs Nelis responded well to their points about hypocrisy. This is the party of Ulster Resistance, the party of Harryville intimidation, the party of Drumcree intimidation. It is also a homophobic party, which not only discriminates against Catholics and people of other ethnic origins but also against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation. To take a lecture in human rights from people like that is a bit rich.

As David Ford and Roy Beggs said, if the DUP wants a debate on how communities deal with criminals in the absence of an acceptable policing service, it should put down a motion and we will gladly debate it. In essence, that is not what we are dealing with here. Another amusing thing is that we sit on Committees with these people - everyone knows this, the media know it and I dare say the electorate knows it, particularly the Unionist electorate. We sit on Assembly Committees, we make proposals and suggestions and we have no problem having them accepted by most parties. Suddenly the cameras appear, and people put on their super-Unionist outfits and cannot support anything that comes from Sinn Féin. That hypocrisy stands up and is seen and the Unionist electorate is not fooled by some of the stances taken here today.

Mrs Robinson did not care to listen when I was speaking earlier, and she does not care to listen now either. So what is new? She accused me of an anti-British rant. Mrs Nelis responded quite clearly to Dr Birnie. We are as critical of the Irish Government in their response to this issue as we are of the British Government. It is certainly not a rant against the British Government.

I welcome Mr Ford's support for the motion. I agree with his concerns about the plight of asylum seekers who are not in detention and the difficulties they face. He made the point about people being exiled from this part of the world. My party and I have said that exiling people is not a satisfactory response to criminal behaviour. Other party members and I have encouraged people to adopt non-violent, community-based responses to crime through restorative justice projects. We have spent months upon months, as other parties in the House have done, trying to ensure the establishment of a proper policing service that we can all support. That would remove the need for communities to deal with criminals in their midst.

I also thank John Fee for his support for the motion. I share the concerns he expressed on behalf of his party about the global response to refugees. I welcome his own and his party's support for recommendations in the report. I appreciate the point he made about people being forced into exile. As he spoke, I was reminded of a document that hangs in my office, signed by Dawson Bates, one of the first Ministers here. It is a document that excluded my grandfather from the Six Counties of Northern Ireland, including Belfast. He was a resident of County Armagh, but was forced into exile in the Twenty- six Counties. He was jailed on his return to the Six Counties, as he tried to come home to his family. I know all about exile, as do plenty of people in my party. I hang the document in my office to remind me of the humanitarian nature of previous Administrations here.

I also appreciate Mr Fee's point about the creation of a responsible attitude, and I make the point again about Mr Wells's contribution and some media contributions on the issue of asylum seekers. That sort of racist rant stirs up a feeling of "We cannot afford these people; they do not belong to the island". That is interesting coming from the people it does. If people had adopted that attitude, a few generations back this island would be a more sparsely inhabited place than it is now, especially this part of it. We welcome the benefits that economic refugees brought centuries ago, but suddenly the ports are sealed, the airports are closed and the border is sealed, and nobody is coming in to benefit from the lifestyle we have here.

Mr Hilditch appears to adopt a confused attitude in that he describes asylum seekers as an unknown quantity; they could well be terrorists and could be masquerading here deliberately misleading those trying to deal with their applications for asylum. On the other hand, he professes to have great sympathy with asylum seekers. It is a somewhat confused response.

Mr Beggs made the point about economic immigrants. People who live on this island have an extremely short memory as far as economic immigrants are concerned. He calls for them to be "sympathetically repatriated", in his humanitarian way. If all the economic immigrants who left this island had been sympathetically repatriated - and I am sure they included people from his constituency - there would probably not be any room left on the island for himself.

I should not have been surprised about it, but I was astounded that he chose the debate to launch attacks on Republicans and on organised Republican activity in the Larne area. I have yet to hear him speak on television about the nightly attacks on Catholics in the Larne constituency. Perhaps I have missed it. The people of that area may well not hear his contribution.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>