JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS debate -
Tuesday, 25 Feb 2003

Vol. 1 No. 14

Justice and Home Affairs Council: Ministerial Presentation.

Chairman

I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and his officials to the meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to have a briefing by the Minister prior to the Justice and Home Affairs Inter-ministerial Council meeting on 27 and 28 February. The Minister has agreed to attend meetings of this committee to provide briefings before and after Council meetings and, in so far as is possible, keep members updated and fully informed.

We thank the Department for the co-operation and efficient manner in which it provided the background briefing material on all the agenda items. Members have been circulated with the background documentation. I ask the Minister to give us a briefing on the forthcoming meeting.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Mr. McDowell)

I thank the Chairman for inviting me to address the committee.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss with members of the committee the agenda for the forthcoming Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting, the first such meeting under the Greek Presidency. This is my second pre-Council discussion with the committee and Members may recall that in our previous discussion in December there was an extremely full agenda, with over 20 items for consideration in addition to "A" items - items effectively passed without debate.

On this occasion, the agenda is less demanding. Members may wish to note that the discussion on the first day will focus on immigration, asylum and operational matters, while the second day will concentrate on what are regarded by many administrations as justice matters. The committee has already been provided with information notes on the matters listed on the agenda, but I would like to comment briefly on the matters tabled for discussion. I understand one of the items listed, the proposed measure on the status of third country nationals who are long-term residents, will not be discussed.

The proposal for a Council directive on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals and stateless persons as refugees, or as persons who might otherwise need international protection, is at an advanced stage of discussion and is expected to be adopted during the Greek Presidency. As its name suggests, it sets out the eligibility criteria for both refugee status in the European Union and the entitlements of those who qualify for that protection. Since it is a Title IV measure, it does not automatically apply to Ireland, but on this occasion we have opted into it and at this stage there are no outstanding issues of concern to us.

In contrast, neither Ireland nor the United Kingdom has opted in to the proposed Council directive on the right to family reunification. The latter establishes the right of legally resident third country nationals to be joined by their families.

We will listen with interest to the Commission's information on burden-sharing and the management of external borders and related matters. We look forward to the results of the Commission studies in the area.

The item on passport controls at Schengen entry points concerns the stamping of passports in certain circumstances. It does not apply to Ireland as we do not participate in the borders aspects of the Schengen system.

I attended the London conference last November on organised crime in south-eastern Europe and I welcome, therefore, the open debate at the Council on fighting organised crime in the western Balkans. It is my intention to keep up the momentum generated by that conference. I met Lord Ashdown - Paddy Ashdown, former leader of the Liberal Democrats - the United Nations High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, at the London conference and I invited him to send a delegation to Ireland to examine the workings of the Criminal Assets Bureau. He accepted, and the delegation, which will comprise seven UN high level experts, will be here on 12 and 13 March.

Discussions on the second day of the Council meeting will cover a proposed European Union-United States of America agreement and three proposed framework decisions. The EU-US agreement covers judicial co-operation in criminal matters and extradition and derives from the immediate post-11 September period. The agreement is intended to build on, rather than replace, existing bilateral agreements and the emerging agreement is unlikely to cause difficulty for Ireland because the issues are already covered in our bilateral agreement with the United States.

The Presidency hopes to agree a general approach on the proposed framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia. Ireland's position in negotiations has been to protect our constitutional right of freedom of expression, while at the same time ensuring that hate speech and documents are criminalised and subject to effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties.

The intention of the proposed framework decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties is that a fine imposed in one member state can be executed and collected in another. The discussion will focus on resolution of outstanding issues, especially in relation to an agreed list of offences and the question of dual criminality.

The last measure tabled is a proposed framework decision which will require member states to criminalise attacks against information systems, which has been under discussion for a number of months. Ireland supports the general thrust of the proposal, which is an important element of the European Union's drive to tackle cyber-crime.

The agenda for the Council also includes a number of "A" items which will be adopted by the Council without discussion. Material on these items has been included in the information notes provided to the committee, but I do not propose to offer comments on those items at this point.

I would like to reiterate my commitment to enhanced Oireachtas scrutiny of the EU agenda. This pre-Council discussion serves a valuable purpose and I look forward to any comments and queries in relation to the agenda.

Chairman

This agenda is relevant to the work of the committee and to matters which are ongoing in Ireland.

Deputy Costello

I am delighted an invitation was extended to Lord Ashdown in relation to the Criminal Assets Bureau. There is no doubt that Britain has something to learn from us in that regard.

I take it we will proceed with the proceeds of corruption Bill shortly. I understand the Bill which will enable us to examine white collar crime is at an advanced stage.

Deputy McDowell

As I indicated at the last meeting of this committee, there are some unanticipated constitutional issues currently on the desk of the Attorney General. Until they are resolved I cannot promise immediate progress on that issue.

Deputy P. McGrath

Could the Minister not do a double job and deal with that himself?

Deputy McDowell

I cannot do that anymore and, in any event, I am only paid one salary.

Chairman

If the Minister were to do that, he would be back down on the Attorney General's salary.

Deputy Costello

I thought the constitutional aspects of the Criminal Assets Bureau legislation on the proceeds of crime Bill would have been dealt with rather than arising at this point.

Deputy McDowell

No, the position is slightly different.

Deputy Costello

I know it is different.

Deputy McDowell

The Criminal Assets Bureau is justified on the basis that the proceeds of crime are never the property of the person who is found in possession of them. Therefore, it is not a criminal act to penalise the person by taking the property in question from the person since the Supreme Court has held that it is not the person's property in the first place, even though the person is in possession of it. It is slightly different if one owns 200 acres of ground and gets its value enhanced by corruption, in which case, it is one's property. Therefore, slightly more subtle issues come into play as to whether dispossessing one of money on account of the fact that one has enhanced a property's value is simply depriving one of something that one never owned. That may fall on a different side of the line. That issue, among others, is currently holding matters up.

Deputy Costello

I hope the delay in bringing forward the Bill is not due to the fact that it deals with white collar crime.

Deputy McDowell

No.

Deputy Costello

There is always a delay in dealing with such matters.

I want the Minister to clarify a recent decision he made. One of the proposed Council directives deals with minimum standards in relation to third country nationals. With regard to the manner in which the Minister will deal with asylum seekers in future, they will not make claims to the Department of Social and Family Affairs for rented accommodation or a subsidy towards rent will not be made available to them. Rather they will be housed directly in State accommodation under the Minister's Department. Therefore, his Department will deal totally with asylum seekers. That position seems to be contrary to the European guidelines. How does that position conform with minimum standards in relation to the rest of the European Union?

Chairman

If the Deputy wishes, the Minister could answer that question and the Deputy can come back in again.

Deputy Costello

Yes.

Chairman

In that way we could have a reply which would make the discussion more interesting.

Deputy McDowell

The position is that at present all applicants for asylum in Ireland are entitled to direct provision by the Irish State. That involves the provision of accommodation, the necessities of life, plus a small amount in respect of what could be termed pocket money for day-to-day living expenses. A pattern developed in the past whereby people left direct provision accommodation and applied for community welfare payments under the social welfare scheme on a voluntary basis. That issue, in relation to rent allowance in particular, is to be tackled in the Social Welfare Bill, which will be before the House shortly. Up to now there was an arrangement whereby people - due to the fact that the mothers of Irish children were granted residency rights as a matter of administrative policy until the Supreme Court decision - were free to leave the direct provision accommodation and to apply, even in late pregnancy, to establish their own rented accommodation on the basis of rent allowance payable.

As the Deputy will be aware, the Supreme Court has ruled that the sole fact that one is the parent of an Irish child does not mean that by that fact alone one can qualify to reside in Ireland where the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform determines that one's residency would subvert our immigration controls. As a consequence, the pattern of people leaving direct provision to set up their own homes, in the context of being in the late stage of pregnancy or shortly after childbirth, will be remedied in the context of the Social Welfare Bill.

In so far as the Deputy is suggesting that the proposed arrangements are in breach of EU law, they are not. Generally speaking, our arrangements are uniquely generous. In addition, we have the second highest per capita rate of asylum seeking in the European Union. Therefore, the arrangements we offer to asylum seekers cannot be seen in any way as a disincentive. The figures show that rather than declining, the number of asylum seekers in Ireland has been increasing to nearly 12,000 per annum at present.

The Deputy will be aware that we are spending €300 million per annum on asylum seekers under all the programmes where we are required to make expenditure available such as direct provision, education, health, asylum administration and so on. Some €300 million per annum is being expended from the Exchequer. To put that in context, €800 million is the entire budget for the UNHCR operation worldwide. We spend three eighths of the entire sum spent by the UN around the world on the refugee issue here. I make those points because sometimes people succumb to the notion that we are mean and un-generous in our approach. However, we spend three eighths of the total UN refugee budget on the asylum seeker front here every year.

Deputy Costello

I do not know the relevance of the Minister's reference to three eighths of the total UN refugee budget. The United States had approximately 120,000 asylum seekers last year. I am sure what it spends on the refugee issue must be in excess of the total UN refugee budget. Therefore, I do not see the relevancy of the Minister's point.

It seems the Minister introduced the measure to bring the direct provision within the ambit of his Department, without any exceptions, to bring the position here in line with that of the United Kingdom. Did I say the United States in relation to the 120,000 refugees? I meant the United Kingdom which had approximately 120,000 asylum seekers last year. Obviously, it would spend more than the total of the UN refugee budget. The Minister has brought us into line with the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom has generally been seen as out of line with minimum EU conditions in its direct provision mechanism. Holding people in this direct provision hostel accommodation does not take into consideration people who have bad health and so forth.

The Minister seems to have made a decision on the residency issue. There was an agreement in the committee that, arising out of the Supreme Court decision on the residency of people who were born to asylum seekers in this country, we would invite the various agencies and relevant bodies, including the Minister, before the committee and that there would be a moratorium on decision making on the matter until it had been teased out fully. The Minister indicated that there would be a moratorium in relation to how he would deal with these applications. This involves 10,000 to 12,000 people and the issue was to be examined by this committee. However, the Minister appears to have made a decision with regard to pregnant women already so any deliberations we might have might very well be irrelevant.

Chairman

We had agreed that, Deputy. However, there have been time constraints but we will discuss it as soon as possible. We did not suggest that a moratorium should be put on the work of the Minister in that regard.

Deputy Costello

The Minister said publicly that he would make no immediate decision on the matter and that he would consider each case on its merits. It was in that context that the committee was going to invite the relevant bodies and tease out this issue.

Chairman

We were going to have a general discussion and invite groups who represent the various asylum seekers and refugees to come before the committee. We were also going to invite groups representing the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the people who look after asylum seekers.

Deputy McDowell

Deputy Costello suggested that I anticipated the committee's discussions. I have not and I did not give an undertaking that I would make no decisions in the matter. There are two broad methods of seeking asylum in Ireland and there was a third, which simply rested on proof of the fact that the person was the parent of an Irish born child.

I have said that the third ground, an application for residency based on parenthood of an Irish born child, is no longer open. It does not cut across the right of somebody to claim asylum. It means that the person cannot opt out of the asylum process and into a fast track based on parenthood of an Irish born child just because one has a child born in this country. The Department has made it clear that the other classical methods of achieving the right to reside in Ireland remain open but that the fast track method, based on being the parent of an Irish born child, is no longer open for new applications. I also indicated that in the case of the 10,000 or so people, whose applications for residency based on having an Irish born child were pending at the time of the Supreme Court decision, I would make no decision en bloc and that I would consider each on an individual basis. That commitment stands.

Chairman

I hope any discussion the committee has will assist the Minister in that matter.

Deputy McDowell

I hope so.

Deputy P. McGrath

The Minister mentioned the fact that Ireland's expenditure in this area is three eighths of the UN's expenditure on refugees. I do not know the relevance of that figure or why the Minister mentioned it. It sounds like a good media soundbite. Where is this coming from? The UN does not have direct responsibility for many asylum seekers. It is generally the host country that picks up the tab. Britain will expend huge amounts of money on it. What is the Minister including in the figure of €300 million? Has he included medical expenses and medical cards, attendance at hospitals, schools and the caravan villages in places such as Athlone? Is he including the employees of the Department who deal with the refugees and the Garda time expended on refugees? Has the Minister pulled these figures together to arrive at——

Deputy McDowell

Yes.

Deputy P. McGrath

Is the Minister saying he expended Civil Service time to get that figure? I wonder what his motivation was in putting something like that together. I am concerned about his motivation. It is giving me a jaundiced view at this stage.

Deputy McDowell

I mentioned this figure because I wanted to convey to Deputy Costello that Ireland was not mean or behind the door in making provision for asylum seekers. We have the second highest rate of asylum seekers per capita in Europe and our expenditure on the asylum issue is truly huge. My Department spends roughly €73 million on direct provision. Over and above that there are between 300 and 400 public servants administering the system. In addition, there is significant expenditure by the Department of Social and Family Affairs in respect of asylum seekers in a number of ways, including through child benefit, rent supplements, rent allowances, community welfare payments and the like. On top of that there is the education budget and the health budget.

Deputy Costello mentioned health problems for people in direct provision. The reception and integration agency provides excellent medical facilities for people in direct provision. If members doubt this, I invite them to visit the facility at Balseskin.

Deputy Costello

Does the Minister think we will be invited to see the facility in Broc House?

Deputy McDowell

The facility in Broc House is unused due to High Court litigation, which restrains the Department from using it. Deputy McGrath asked why I raised this issue. There are certain implications for an expenditure of that amount in respect of people who have come to Ireland and of whom 90% have consistently been found not to be entitled to refugee status. I guess that 95% of the remaining 10% should have made their application in another Dublin Convention country.

This sum of money is being expended in a manner which takes away substantially from our capacity to fund such things as overseas development aid. Although that budget increased last year and this year, it did not grow by as much as we had targeted a number of years ago. One of the reasons is that so many resources are diverted into the refugee and asylum seeking process in Ireland. There are moral issues there which the Deputy might consider at greater length. I am not trying to grab headlines. I am merely telling the truth, which is that considerable amounts of Exchequer funding are going into the asylum seeking phenomenon in Ireland when they could be going to other things, including overseas development aid.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees does not look after asylum seekers in developed countries. Nonetheless, about 15 million people look to that organisation for assistance. If the Deputy were to visit some of the facilities it funds, he might see some moral discontinuity between what is happening in Ireland and what is happening in those places.

Senator Walsh

I would welcome any initiative from the Minister to rationalise the system. The more we spread this maintenance across a number of Departments, the more ineffective it is. Bringing it under the umbrella of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is something I would welcome. From the point of view of a local authority I must say that although it may not be so apparent in Dublin, anybody who is familiar with the accommodation being provided for asylum seekers around the country could not say other than that it compares favourably with comparable establishments internationally. It also compares favourably with the accommodation offered to nationals who are seeking accommodation. Anything that can be done to accelerate the process of adjudicating the applications would also be welcome and should be encouraged. The process is costing ten times more than it should, simply because of the numbers we have, and if 90% are falling out of the net, that means that other states within the Union are not playing their part and, as a consequence, the onus is falling on us.

The EU-US agreement covering judicial co-operation, criminal matters and extradition was mentioned. How are our extradition arrangements affected in situations in which the death penalty would apply in the US and generally across the EU? The second question relates to no. 5 of the "A" items: resolutions of representative member states within the Council on the treatment of drug abusers in prisons. Could the Minister expand on this? We have a problem in that area within this jurisdiction and I would welcome any positive suggestions that could assist us in that regard.

Deputy McDowell

There is an existing bilateral treaty with the USA, but it is well constructed so as to exclude the extradition of anyone to America in circumstances in which they are proposed to be executed. Under Article 13 of the proposed EU agreement, it is provided that where the offence for which extradition is sought is punishable by death under the laws of the requesting state and not in the requested state, the requested state - Ireland, for example - may grant extradition on condition that the death penalty shall not be imposed on the person sought. If, for procedural reasons, such a condition cannot be complied with by the requesting state, the state may grant extradition on condition that the death penalty, if imposed, shall not be carried out. If the requesting state requests extradition subject to the conditions pursuant to this paragraph, it should comply with the conditions; if it does not, the request for extradition can be denied.

This effectively means that the new regime is on all fours with our existing arrangements with the USA, namely that extradition to the USA in respect of any offence carrying capital punishment in the USA or in any court of any state within the USA can only be carried out if Ireland receives an assurance that the death penalty will not, in fact, be imposed.

Chairman

I have a question relating to combating racism and xenophobia. We have found that hate speech generates a lot of racism and could generate attacks on non-nationals. What sort of legislation or regulations does the Minister envisage to criminalise this or to ensure that there are effective, proportional and dissuasive penalties?

Deputy McDowell

The Prohibition of Incitement to Racial, Religious or National Hatred Act 1989 is already in existence, the penalties in which comply with the proposed framework decision. Our substantive law largely anticipates what we would consider necessary. Looking at No. 8 in the indents, one can see that one of the issues causing some difficulty at the moment is that Article 1 requires each member state to take the necessary measures to ensure that certain intentional conducts are punishable, one of which is publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, as defined in Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the statute of the International Criminal Court, directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, belief, descent or national or ethnic origin. Another is the public denial or gross trivialisation of the crimes mentioned in the international military tribunal appended to the London Agreement of 1945 - which effectively relates to the Nuremberg trials - directed against a group or member of a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, belief, descent or national or ethnic origin.

The difficulty is that effectively this is a European concept, in some member states, of Holocaust denial being an offence per se. That is not known at all in common law countries. As Deputies know, there was a major controversy in England recently whereby an academic who had engaged in Holocaust denial sued unsuccessfully for damages. The common law countries regard freedom of speech as including the right, even though it flies in the face of history, to deny or repudiate facts of history, whereas many of the civil law countries, particularly those with an intimate relationship with the genocidal events of the first half of the 20th century, actually criminalise public denial of the historical truth of those events. There is a difficulty in reconciling common law and civil law views on these issues.

Chairman

That will be further discussed when the convention on Europe reports.

Deputy P. McGrath

I have heard, in my time in this House, various excuses for not living up to our responsibilities in relation to overseas aid. This is the first time I have heard anybody, particularly a Minister, say that overseas aid is not at the level it should be because we are looking after our refugees so well. That is an outrageous comment and requires clarification. That a senior Minister in this Government would use that as an excuse beggars belief. I know his colleague, Deputy O'Donnell, had a major problem some time ago in relation to overseas relief, but I am beginning to see that perhaps, knowing the background movements that were going on and the discussions that were taking place, she was rightly sickened by it all.

Government expenditure is a question of making choices. It makes choices under separate subheads and areas. This Government decided that it would not live up to its responsibility. It also has a responsibility for refugees, but I cannot see how the Minister could put forward the suggestion that as a direct result of our having so many refugees and spending so much on them, we cannot live up to our responsibilities in relation to overseas aid. It is outrageous.

Deputy McDowell

That is not what I said. I said that expenditure of the order of €300 million raises moral issues in circumstances where most of it proves to be in respect of people who are not entitled to protection at this stage. When one compares it with the UN budget to be expended on people internationally, moral issues have also to be considered. I have said this on many occasions and I am not afraid of craw-thumping on the Deputy's part. I am speaking the plain truth.

Anybody who believes a Minister in my position should ignore the fact that decisions made in his Department and on foot of laws under his control, involving expenditure of €300 million per annum on the part of the Exchequer in respect of a great majority of people who are found not to be entitled to protection, should reconsider his view. Also, one is misguided if one believes expenditure of that order can occur without somebody querying the morality of leaving in place a law which brings about such expenditure, given that it occurs at the expense of other choices. It is not simply a matter of overseas development aid, but of things that could be done here which are not done because of the magnitude of expenditure.

The implication is obvious and the Deputy should face up to it. If he has any difficulty with it he should ask ten or 15 of his constituents whether they agree with my position or his. He will find out very rapidly how isolated and unrepresentative his view is.

Deputy P. McGrath

The answer the Minister just gave bears no relevance to what he said earlier.

Deputy Hoctor

I take issue with the twisted opinion of Deputy Paul McGrath on overseas aid. The Minister has already informed us that we are the second highest in Europe on a scale pertaining to our intake of asylum seekers, be they potential refugees or otherwise. The Minister has clarified the matter very well.

Deputy P. McGrath

The Minister did not clarify it. He avoided answering the question.

Deputy Hoctor

I do not know if other Deputies listen to their constituents, but I am not afraid to say I am concerned at the level of non-nationals entering the island, in respect of whom we seem to be very generous, perhaps overly so in terms of the provision of funding. We live on a small island and we have done well and I hope we will continue to do so. We should always be "Ireland of the welcomes" but there should be some constraints.

We have a fund that must be divided properly, adequately and with common sense. That is the job of Government. However, I have some concerns. If we are to listen to our constituents we will discover they have many other needs, which the Opposition is sometimes good at pointing out because it is its job. Such needs include housing, which natives of this country have difficulty in acquiring. I am thankful that there are facilities for non-nationals who are entitled to be in this country. Does the Minister share my concern that that there are enormous numbers coming to our shores every week in light of the fact that he has proven, through his Department, that we are not in a position to fund everybody? I understand that 90% do not qualify under our criteria and must leave again.

Chairman

Perhaps the Minister can answer that following Deputy Costello's contribution.

Deputy Costello

I disagree with Deputy Hoctor and the Minister and agree with Deputy Paul McGrath. The Minister's comments were made in the context of his observation that 90% of asylum seekers were spurious applicants. He did not use the word "spurious" but he implied that their claims had no basis. Furthermore, he said that a further 95% of the remaining 10% should have come under the Dublin Convention. In this context he said that we could not provide the same amount of overseas aid as we did previously and that we had to consider the matter in light of the money that was being spent on asylum seekers. Why does the Minister not look at the issue from a different point of view?

Our policy on asylum seekers is in a shambles. Last year we brought in 40,000 people and gave them work permits. The Tánaiste will always insist that applications for permits have to be made through employers. The Minister knows that Irish people going abroad in the past were economic refugees. He has not and does not intend to put in place any work permit system to allow the countries from which so many economic refugees come to get a proportion of the work permits. Even one quarter of the work permits given out last year would have accounted for the totality of asylum seekers last year if a proper scheme had been organised with the countries from which they came. If there were some order, the matter could be dealt with very easily. To trade off overseas aid with provision for asylum seekers is a very cynical exercise. It ill-becomes the Minister to take this approach and the best thing he could do would be to apologise and adopt the approach I suggest.

On the issue of provision for asylum seekers——

Chairman

We can address it on our next meeting because we are running out of time.

Deputy Costello

Will the Minister clarify his position? He intends to bring all the asylum seekers under the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and all the experience and knowledge that has been gleaned over the years from the other Departments will be null and void because they will not be involved with the asylum process. Is it the case that everybody entering the country will be held in holding camps? This is not in keeping with minimum standards, to which the Minister alluded in his opening remarks. Will he clarify this?

Will the new rules being brought in apply to people from now on? Are we to take it that some of the people who were expecting residency as a result of their having children born here will be held in the centres and hostels which I presume the Minister will be opening throughout the country?

Chairman

I am aware that there is a Private Members' motion on crime in the Dáil and that both Deputies Costello and McDowell will be involved. I would appreciate it if Deputy Costello completed his statement.

Deputy Costello

Apparently we will not sign up to the directive regarding family reunification. Will we be much out of line with the rest of Europe in this respect? What countries are signing up to this directive, which is to come before the Council? What is the policy of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on this matter?

A person came to see me yesterday who has been living here for seven years. He cannot bring either his children or spouse to Ireland. Applications to the Department have been refused time and again. Do we have a timescale on this issue or how can close family members, such as children, be brought into the country to people to whom refugee status has been granted?

My last point relates to external borders. Will the Minister put forward the case that Ireland, as an island, requires funding for border security? We talk about the Criminal Assets Bureau. Is there anything in place whereby Europe would recognise that we have particular concerns in relation to the burden of funding required to police our borders and that some special financial provision would be made?

Chairman

Does Deputy McGrath wish to pose any questions in respect of other matters, such as the EU, US or cyber crime?

Deputy P. McGrath

No.

Senator J. Walsh

I differ with Deputy Costello in regard to the points he made. I am sure the Minster would not be so foolish as to take on board his advocacy. What is the total number of refugees in the country at present? How long is the average stay and by how much do we hope to reduce it?

Chairman

Is that the number of asylum seekers rather refugees?

Senator J. Walsh

Yes, the number of asylum seekers. I am critical of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for the unacceptable delays in processing applications. There is a need to accelerate the process. Any initiative the Minister takes in that regard should be supported by this committee.

Deputy Hoctor

I have a question which is often not addressed. A Pakistani family, for example, which has lived in Ireland for a number of years, has a business, has moved within the country and has had their children educated, may be on the list awaiting full status and, perhaps, citizenship but there seems to be a backlog due to the large numbers on other lists. Will the Minister address this important issue? Such families seems to be way down the list and more recent applications for asylum seem to be getting the attention.

Deputy McDowell

People recognised as refugees are given the right to work in Ireland. No refugee is denied the right to work here. The only people who are not allowed to work, and to which this is relevant, are those who are in the process of applying for refugee status, namely, asylum seekers. They are not allowed to work in Ireland and the reason is fairly clear. To reverse our policy on that and to adopt the phrase used by Deputy Costello and recognise them as economic refugees, would be to tear up the basis of the 1951 convention——

Deputy Costello

On a point of order, misrepresentation does not become the Minister. The Minister has a responsibility not to misrepresent Deputies.

Deputy McDowell

No asylum seeker is given the right to work while his application is pending. To accord to asylum seekers the right to work while their application is pending, would be, in effect, to recognise them as economic migrants. If they are here trying to flee persecution, then they can wait on direct provision until such time as a decision is made in respect of them.

We are living in a slightly unreal world here. Last year the Czech Republic, for example, abolished the right of asylum seekers to work pending the outcome of their applications and the number there went down from 9,000, which is approximately three quarters of our rate, to 2,000. Therefore, anybody who argues that the right to work is not relevant to the flow of asylum seekers faces facts which go in the opposite direction.

In regard to the right of asylum seekers to work, the 300 to 400 people working on this area at present have made huge progress. The Refugees Application Commissioner and her staff have brought about a major change in relation to the backlog of applications. Applications are now being determined in the RAC process in respect of people who came here in November or December of last year. Effectively, we have got it down to a three month period. People who have the notion that this takes a long time are wrong. Likewise, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal is making huge progress on its arrears so the process will, in the near future, be one which will reach a complete determination of the issues within four and five months. The acclaimed right to work in that context is a bit misconceived.

In regard to Deputy Hoctor's point, people who are resident in Ireland for upwards of five years are entitled to apply for naturalisation as Irish citizens. I hope I am not accused of using unfair tactics but, because of the administrative burden in my Department of dealing with all these flows of activity, there is a 15 month waiting list before one's application is even considered. If I did not have a certain other difficulty with which to deal, I could probably deploy some of those extra resources to deal with naturalisation of people who are legally resident in Ireland.

People who are legally resident in Ireland, including those granted residency as parents of Irish children, are generally given the right to work. We do not normally give residency rights to people on the condition that they do not participate. There are some exceptions in respect of people who reside for academic purposes but, in general, people who need a job and who are legally resident in Ireland have access to our labour market.

I could not even attempt to satisfy Senator Walsh's curiosity as to the number of asylum seekers in Ireland. The problem is - Deputy Costello will accuse me of being unfair - that 45% of them never turn up for a second interview. They simply disappear having made their initial application. I do not know whether they go to Britain or reside in Ireland. There is a huge leakage from the system, in the first instance, of people who come in, make an application and then simply cease to exist as far as pursuing that application is concerned. One of the changes we will bring into law is that if somebody does not pursue their application, they will be deemed to have withdrawn it and that will be the end of the matter. An order for their deportation will be made.

Chairman

The Minister will have a better fix on it when the Department takes over the rent subsidy scheme from the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

Deputy McDowell

In regard to people going forward, Deputy Costello asked for an assurance that it would not be applied retrospectively. In general terms he is correct in that I do not intend to apply it retrospectively to people who are already in receipt of social welfare on foot of residence in Ireland. In normal circumstances, anybody given residency - for example, parents of an Irish child - will be given the right to work. The Deputy should be under no illusion in that regard.

The issue of burden-sharing really relates to the Mediterranean countries. Greece, Italy and Spain are effectively in the front line of the EU. They are applying to the Justice and Home Affairs Council to adopt a policy and to recommend, through the budgetary process, that they should receive assistance in dealing with the influx of refugees they face. These are truly massive movements of people across the Mediterranean. The burden of regulating the seaways to prevent this illegal flow of people and of stopping those who are trafficking other people in dangerous boats and crash-landing them on shores in Italy, Spain and Greece, etc., is significant. Those countries are seeking help. Ireland is not looking to Europe for help on this matter. In my opinion, an application for assistance would not be likely to be considered favourably.

Returning to a point raised earlier by Deputy McGrath, I remind him that the former Prime Minister of Holland, Ruud Lubbers, has publicly both criticised and appealed to member states about their failure to aid the UNHCR while spending huge sums of money in their own jurisdictions. This is not, therefore, a matter in which my perspective is unique. It is self-evident that the points I made are correct, and I would appeal to Members, particularly Deputy Costello, to stop using inflammatory language. I hold nobody in any detention centre or holding camp. Nobody is held in these——

Deputy Costello

Then what is the Minister calling them? They are holding centres.

Deputy McDowell

No, the centres are accommodation provided by the State to somebody who claims that he or she is persecuted. They are free. The people in them are not, in any sense, held against their wishes. Has the Deputy ever bothered to even look at any of these places? There is no sense in which anybody is a captive or a prisoner. What they are required to do is reside in the accommodation provided for them by the State.

Chairman

Does Deputy Costello wish to clarify the matter in order that we can proceed?

Deputy Costello

What is the difference? It is an accommodation centre, it is a holding centre.

Chairman

There is a big difference between a holding centre, and the connotation that applies to that term, and an accommodation centre.

Deputy Costello

They will be held there until their application is processed and they cannot leave it. They cannot go elsewhere.

Deputy McDowell

They do not have the means to rent private accommodation in the vast majority of cases.

Deputy Costello

Is that not a holding centre?

Deputy McDowell

It is not a holding centre.

Chairman

The term "holding centre" denotes something that is forceful where there are police involved.

Deputy Costello

I asked the Minister whether it was within the minimal rules on dealing with asylum seekers? It is my understanding that it is not.

Chairman

That is a valid question.

Deputy McDowell

I assure the Deputy that our provision is wholly consistent with European standards and I ask him to visit places like Denmark and France, which on occasions he holds out as an enlightened models for us, and examine their situation and compare it with ours. He will find that ours is very much more liberal than theirs.

Deputy Costello

The Minister, as I have said, has a great habit of tilting at windmills. He has a go at something that is not said and he can demolish it very readily. He is a great man for doing that. I did not speak about asylum seekers being given the right to work. I never mentioned that. I was delighted to hear that he was now processing——

Senator J. Walsh

May I raise a point of information?

Chairman

Deputy Costello, without interruption.

Senator J. Walsh

The Deputy mentioned that one quarter of asylum seekers should be allowed work.

Deputy Costello

We can have all the information——

Deputy McDowell

Deputy Costello is now hallucinating. He was talking about work permits.

Chairman

Please allow Deputy Costello to continue.

Deputy Costello

I am delighted that the Minister is now saying that they are in a position to process applications in a three-month period. When we discuss the right to work of asylum seekers, it is in the context of the length of time it took to process applications in the past. What I was saying is that the entire asylum seeking process is in a mess. Last year, 40,000 work permits were given to non-nationals. If we gave even a quarter of those permits to the countries from which the asylum seekers come, then we would be able to deal with them. I am not saying that they should be given to existing asylum seekers. It is in respect of this matter that Senator Walsh and, as usual, the Minister seem not to have been listening to what I was saying. If we allowed those people to come to this country on work permits, they would do useful work here. We would be putting some type of order on the process. I also pointed the fact that, for centuries, Ireland sent out economic refugees to countries throughout the world.

Chairman

I want to allow the Minister to respond to that proposal for a quarter of the work permits.

Deputy McDowell

The country of origin from which the largest number of asylum seekers come is Nigeria. I see no logical connection. It is a total non sequitur that if I was to grant 10,000 work permits to Nigeria, there would be any diminution in the number of people coming here. There are 120 million people living in Nigeria. I do not know why anybody who comes looking for asylum at present would not do so unless they were those who were granted the permits.

Deputy Costello

The second largest country of origin is Romania.

Deputy McDowell

Yes. I still do not see why granting work permits by quota to those countries would in any way diminish the number of asylum seekers emanating from them.

Chairman

Surely the skills of the people who come on work permits are different to those of the individuals who come seeking asylum.

Deputy Costello

I am not sure if it is about the skills because the process is entirely led by employers. An employer will look for somebody to suit the job concerned. We could equally give a quota to each of the countries and the people involved could be trained by FÁS or whatever. We could adopt a proactive approach to it rather than this approach, which of course is no approach at all. There is no logic in the way we are dealing with it.

Deputy McDowell

I reject the suggestion that our asylum policy is a shambles. It is now coming into clear focus. The clearer it is, the more Deputy Costello seems to be unhappy. That is the problem.

Deputy Costello

It does not exist.

Chairman

Will the Minister return after the Council of Minister's meeting on 12 March, before the final session of the ECHR Bill, or at another time that is suitable?

Deputy McDowell

I will, and we will deal with the outcome of that report.

Chairman

I thank the Minister.

The joint committee went into private session at 6.29 p.m. and adjourned at 6.44 p.m. until 5 p.m. on Wednesday, 26 February 2003.