COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate - Thursday, 22 Jun 2006

Chairman

We will now discuss the 2004 annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Appropriation Accounts: Vote 19 — Office of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform; chapter 5.1 — enforcement of deportation orders and Vote 20 — Garda Síochána. There are two relevant pieces of correspondence which stem from Mr. Aylward's last meeting with the committee. The first concerns the use of Garda stations as sites for mobile phone masts, while the second is a letter from the chairman of the Office of Public Works providing additional information on the monitoring of mobile telephony mast installations on State property.

Witnesses should be aware that they do not enjoy absolute privilege. Their attention and that of members is drawn to the fact that, as and from 2 August 1998, section 10 of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997 grants certain rights to persons identified in the course of the committee's proceedings. These rights include the right to give evidence; the right to produce or send documents to the committee; the right to appear before the committee, either in person or through a representative; the right to make a written and oral submission; the right to request the committee to direct the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, and the right to cross-examine witnesses. For the most part, these rights may be exercised only with the consent of the committee. Persons invited to appear before the committee are made aware of these rights and any persons identified in the course of proceedings who are not present may have to be made aware of them and provided with a transcript of the relevant part of the committee's proceedings if the committee considers it appropriate in the interests of justice.

Notwithstanding this provision in the legislation, I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. They are also reminded of the provisions in Standing Order 156 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits of the objectives of such policy or policies. Will Mr. Aylward please introduce his officials?

Paragraph 5.1 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General reads:

Enforcement of Deportation Orders

Introduction

The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is responsible for implementing Government policy on refugees and asylums seekers. The costs borne on the Vote in 2004 for implementation amounted to €129m.

Within the Department, the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner (the Commissioner) considers and decides on applications for refugee status from asylum seekers who wish to remain in Ireland. The Refugee Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) decides appeals against Commissioner decisions. Both agencies forward their recommendations to the Ministerial Decisions Unit of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

The Ministerial Decisions Unit makes decisions on behalf of the Minister in relation to recommendations made by the Commissioner and the Tribunal on asylum applications. The Minister is, in general, bound by recommendations to grant asylum made by those bodies. In the case of negative recommendations, the asylum seeker is given the options of leaving the country voluntarily, consenting to deportation or making representations to the Minster on a number of grounds as to why he/she should not be deported. Following consideration of the case, including any representations made, leave to remain, on humanitarian or other grounds, may be granted at the discretion of the Minister or (as happens in most cases) the Minster is asked to sign a Deportation Order. The Arrangement Section (within the Repatriation Unit) is responsible for arranging deportation in cooperation with the Garda National Immigration Bureau (the Bureau).

My examination sought to establish the effectiveness of arrangements for enforcing deportation orders. Records of all cases where the Minister had signed an order in 1999 were reviewed to track performance in bringing cases to finality. I also examined a small number of cases from 2003 and 2004 to confirm whether the issues noted from the 1999 cases continued to apply.

Audit Findings

A departmental computer system was first introduced in the Repatriation Unit for the management of deportations in November 1999 and was replaced in October 2004 by a more comprehensive case management system. Migration of data to this system and quality assurance checks will shortly be completed. Table 18 summarises the status of the deportation orders signed by the Minister as recorded on the computer system for the period November 1999 to June 2005. Some 6,300 cases are described as "evaded". The Department informed me that these are cases where the deportation has not been effected and the case is not being actively pursued. An analysis of the 1,236 cases where orders remain to be enforced indicates that about 20% have been stalled due to Irish Born Child Applications and 10% await the outcome of Judicial Review proceedings. Over half of the cases, however, are awaiting enforcement.

Table 18 Status of Deportation Orders 1999-2004 at 30 June 2005
	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	Total
Deportation Orders Signed	80	797	1,801	2,195	2,250	2,723	967	10,813
Deported, left State before enforcement or transferred to another jurisdiction	27	262	470	542	498	384	92	2,275
Evaded	30	326	1,089	1,454	1,467	1,449	522	6,337
Through revocation or otherwise, applicant permitted to remain	14	148	189	104	93	384	33	965
Orders remain to be enforced	9	61	53	95	192	506	320	1,236

The audit review noted that the knock on effects of the following factors are likely to have contributed to the rate of enforcement

·Significant delays between the date of application for asylum and the interview with the Commissioner to determine eligibility to remain in the country. These delays ranged from 2 days to over 22 months, averaging over 9 months.

·Significant time taken to translate questionnaires, which applicants were required to complete for the Commissioner. These ranged from 6 days to almost 2 years and averaged around 8 months.

·Widespread failure by applicants to attend the scheduled interview with the Commissioner. This resulted in repeated written reminders to applicants at addresses from which previous correspondence had been returned undelivered.

·Delays of 1 to 3 years from the date a negative recommendation was made by the Commissioner/Tribunal to the time the Department sent the Deportation Order to the Bureau for enforcement.

In order to help assess the effectiveness of the enforcement of deportation orders, I reviewed papers made available to me by the Bureau in relation to a specific deportation operation in April 2005. My review of this operation showed that the Department targeted 456 failed asylum seekers for deportation to an African country. The Department was aware that that country would accept no more than 50 persons on any one flight. An analysis of the outcome of the 456 cases written to is given in Table 19.

Table 19 Analysis of the Deportation Operation
Failed to show	228
Made new Applications	90
No Deportation Order Received in the Bureau	32
Injunctions taken out	16
Undertakings Made by Asylum Seeker	14
Unable to Travel for Medical Reasons	10
Deportation Orders Revoked	8
Held	6
Irish Born Child Applications	5
Other	22
Number finally Deported	25
Total	456

Accounting Officer's Response

In response to my enquiries, the Accounting Officer pointed out by way of background, that the number of persons applying for asylum in 1996 was only 1,179. By 2000, this had increased to almost 11,000 and further increased to a high of 11,600 in 2002. The Government approved additional resources to deal with the backlog of applications that had arisen. The formal establishment of the Office of the Commissioner and the Tribunal absorbed the majority of these resources. A high level of resources was allocated to these units in 2000 — 2001 resulting in increased outputs. As a consequence, the backlogs in the asylum system moved from application processing to the repatriation function. The intended movement of staff from application processing to repatriation did not happen as quickly as expected resulting in an inflow of files to the Repatriation Unit between 2001 — 2004 without the necessary staff resources to consider them.

He noted that the Refugee Act, 1996 was technically inadequate to address the large-scale increase in applications which arose since its enactment. In addition an elaborate legislative basis for the deportation process (introduced by the Immigration Act 1999) has been shown to be cumbersome and insufficiently streamlined to deal with speedy processing and enforcement of the large increase in deportation orders arising. New legislative proposals are in preparation to address this issue. Furthermore, he stated there was a need to put in place additional legislation (Immigration Act, 2003) to further streamline the Refugee Act, 1996 to deal with the large number of unfounded applications for asylum being received.

He stated that an increasing number of judicial reviews and the slowness of the judicial process in dealing with them had limited the Department's and the Bureau's ability to swiftly process and enforce deportation orders. Other factors outside the control of the Bureau viz. applications for Irish Born Child status and the non-availability of travel documents from diplomatic missions also impact on the enforcement of orders.

However, he was of the view that the overall average of orders enforced since November 1999 (23%) compared favourably with international experience. Over 60% of Deportation Orders issued are deemed 'evaded', in that the persons fail to report to the Bureau as requested in the notification letter sent to them. The legal effect of this is that the persons concerned can be arrested and detained pending their removal for failing to comply with the instruction to report but, in practice, the Bureau told the Accounting Officer that most of those ‘evading' are believed to already have left the State of their own accord and have been removed from the social welfare system on the basis of exchanges of information between the Bureau, the Repatriation Unit and the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

Other delay factors

The Accounting Officer also dealt with the other factors which it was noted had contributed to delays and outlined progress being made.

Interview delays

He informed me that the present position with regard to waiting times for applications to be processed in the Office of the Commissioner and the Tribunal had improved to some 2,739 cases (31 May 2005). This compared with 5,414 at the same time in 2004 and some 10,000 cases in 2000. The number of cases over six months in the asylum system (Commissioner and Tribunal) as at 31 May 2005 stood at 734 as compared to some 6,500 in September 2001. Under new prioritisation arrangements introduced in January 2005, applicants are receiving interviews and decision at first instance within 3 weeks and subsequent appeals are processed within 10 working days.

Translation delays

He informed me that the Commissioner holds questionnaires submitted in support of asylum applications for translation until an interview has been scheduled for the application in question. This is done for reasons of efficiency and economy because of the numbers who do not attend for interview or withdraw from the process. From an average time of 8 months in 2003/4, questionnaires are now translated in less than 4 months.

Failure to Show for Interview

Applicants who fail to show are deemed to have withdrawn and the Commissioner makes a negative recommendation in these cases. As regards failed delivery of correspondence he said desk based and other related procedures are used to check the validity of addresses. It would not be practical from a resource point of view to go beyond these. In any event the Department believes that a significant number of such applicants have left the jurisdiction. Further attempts to trace these people would require additional resources and it is therefore considered that the priority, for efficiency and economy reasons, should be to process those applicants who were interested in having their applications investigated.

Analysis of the Deportation Operation

In the case of the deportation operation involving the 456 failed asylum seekers to the African country, the Accounting Officer said that the numbers targeted could be high multiples of the number actually deported, reflecting the very uncertain and unpredictable environment in which deportation operations are carried out. The high numbers arose from the knowledge that the likely rate of attrition would be high.

He pointed out that in relation to the 228 who failed to show, some were subsequently located in the United Kingdom and the African country. Others have been subsequently deported or will be deported in the future. In each case of 'failure to show' extensive investigations were made in an attempt to locate the individuals concerned. In many cases there was no trace of the individuals after the initial claim for asylum at a port of entry. These people are believed to have claimed asylum for the sole purpose of gaining entry to the State. Others had left their accommodation after receipt of the arrangements letter. The absence of exit checks at departure points from the State and the ease of movement over the land border with Northern Ireland allows for substantial abuse of the common travel area by persons subject to deportation orders.

He also stated that the cases described in Table 19 as 'No Deportation Order Received in the Bureau' refers to persons who had moved from their addresses without permission (in order to avoid deportation) and who were at Ministerial Decisions Unit stage in the process and had been located by the Bureau. The Bureau informed the Department of this and requested that the order be expedited. The Department was unable, for very valid reasons, to provide the orders on time to include the persons concerned in the flight.

Mr. John Purcell

I will deal first with chapter 5.1. It records the results of an examination of the effectiveness of the Department's arrangements for enforcing deportation orders on asylum seekers who fail in their applications to remain in the country. The number of persons seeking asylum increased dramatically from 1997 onwards, culminating in an annual peak of 11,634 in 2002. This surge put huge pressure on the systems being put in place to cope with the increased volume of applications, leading to considerable delays at all stages of the process.

Legislative change in 2003, in the form of the Immigration Act, tightened requirements for applicants to co-operate with the processing agencies and actively pursue their asylum applications. It also gave the Minister the means to improve the administrative process to make it more effective. Around this time the staffing resources to deal with the workload had been built up. This, together with the new arrangements, enabled inroads to be made into the backlog of applications and the delays in processing appeals. The current position in the two areas is much improved.

In a situation where 90% of applicants are ultimately found not to be in need of refugee protection, it is clearly important that those who are not successful in their application for asylum, that is, after exhausting all the legal avenues open to them, should leave the jurisdiction as soon as possible. Some may do so by opting to leave voluntarily but the main mechanism for achieving this end is the signing of a deportation order by the Minister and its subsequent enforcement. Table 18 sets out the position on deportation orders issued from November 1999 to June 2005. The Department recently provided me with the corresponding figures up to the end of last month.

The current position is that out of 12,363 deportation orders signed, 1,253 were revoked or otherwise, enabling the applicant to stay in the country; 2,605 were implemented; 1,352 remain to be enforced; while the remainder, 7,153, fall into the so-called evaded category, which means that the persons named failed to report to the Garda National Immigration Bureau as requested in the letter sent to them. The legal effect of this is that the persons concerned can be arrested and detained pending their removal for failing to comply with the instruction to report but the bureau believes most of those evading have already left the State of their own accord and have been removed from the social welfare system. The truth of the matter is that we do not know what has happened to the vast majority of this cohort. This information deficit is not conducive to the assessment of the effectiveness of the repatriation programme. To be fair, it is not a uniquely Irish problem; I am aware that Britain has the same difficulty.

Notwithstanding this grey area, I would have expected the percentage of deportation orders successfully implemented to increase in line with the faster turnaround in processing applications and appeals. I do not know if that is the case, perhaps the Accounting Officer will have some information in that regard.

Table 19 on page 43 is illustrative of the difficulty in physically deporting failed asylum seekers. The analysis shown relates to a chartered flight to Nigeria in April 2005. Only 25 persons of a target of 456 failed asylum seekers ended up being deported for the reasons set out in the table. This high rate of attrition and the consequent failure to use the aircraft's capacity to the full make the operation a costly exercise for the taxpayer.

Chairman

Does Mr. Aylward wish to make some opening remarks?

Mr. Aylward

Yes, Chairman. The first point I want to make is that the phenomenon of asylum seeking in this part of Europe is a relatively recent one. It has associations with increased access to cheap mass transportation in parts of the world where historically migration movements were very limited, namely, eastern Europe and north and central Africa. The word spread very quickly in the 1980s and particularly the 1990s that there was a regime for the processing of asylum applications in this country which was generous to liberal and that there was an elaborate court and appeal procedure which could take a long time. That word spread very fast through communities where there was considerable poverty and deprivation. We experienced the influx described by the Comptroller and Auditor General and it is fair to say that as a country we were caught flat-footed. This was not something that could have been readily foreseen but whether it was foreseen, the State mobilised its resources to a considerable extent in responding.

Notwithstanding the fact that there was an embargo on expanding the number of public service jobs, the Government and the Department of Finance agreed that we could draw in public servants from throughout the Civil Service to take on this task. Between 1997 and today we increased the number of staff across the various services we set up from about 20 to almost 700. We set up new structures, including the office for refugee applications, an appeals structure and a central service to deal with deportations and all other immigration related functions not covered by the applications and appeals processes. We speeded up the process considerably in so far as it lay within the power of the Executive to do so. We received and continue to receive tremendous help from the Garda Síochána which increased greatly the number of its members dealing with immigration matters. It formed the Garda National Immigration Bureau which works at leadership level from the same offices on Burgh Quay as the director general, Mr. Folan. It works closely with our staff.

At the end of the process with some 90% of applicants being found not to be genuine refugees, there is an elaborate procedure to protect their rights. One aspect is that they are told in advance that a deportation order will be made against them. They are given a final opportunity to appeal their status or for permission to remain. When many get to this point of the process, they skip the country as they are put on notice that gardaí will come for them. When 400 or 500 people are lined up to be deported, the number can dwindle through last minute applications for judicial review, with such applications being made virtually when the people concerned are on the steps of the aeroplane. The number to be deported on a flight to Lagos could decrease from 400 or 500 against whom valid orders have been made to as low as 25 owing to a flurry of last minute applications by their legal teams. The applications would have been in the system for a while and the persons concerned would have had multiple opportunities to have their cases reviewed. The liberal ethos of the State and the carefully separated powers of review, reserved to the courts, are invoked in a clever way to frustrate the State in exercising its right to exclude from the jurisdiction those who do not have a right to be here. This causes frustration. Notwithstanding this, there has been a vast improvement in our efficiency in securing deportations, even since the period under review. We will continue to work to refine our processes and sharpen the law in dealing with these issues, while upholding people's right to make the case that they are genuine refugees.

We introduced a scheme in 2005 to clarify the position in the wake of the referendum in the previous year on the status of the Irish born child. While the State had clarified its laws, a group of people had a certain expectation their children would be recognised as Irish citizens and that they would be allowed to remain here. We introduced a special scheme to deal with them, which has helped clear up many cases.

Just to be clear, a total of 69,000 came in. This figure was deemed to be very important. The scale of the figure would determine what actions might be appropriate for the Department to take.

The phenomenon to which the Deputy refers is known as asylum shopping. In an era of cheap, mass transportation in a part of the world, Europe, where there are many unregistered workers and a booming economy, there will be a phenomenon where people move from country to country, logging onto the asylum system as a means of gaining entry. We will try to isolate that figure, but I hate giving a figure off the top of my head. The danger is that I will mislead the committee and I do not wish to do that.

Deputy Curran

The purpose of asking the question is that if it was a significant number of people, I would have wanted to see the policy response to the issue. If it is an insignificant number, then that does not arise.

In the period from 1999 to June 2005, when 60,000 asylum applications were made, we do not have the exact number of how many were granted and refused. A total of 10,800 deportation orders were made. We have evidence of 2,275 people leaving the country, either through deportation or of their own accord. Is that correct?

Mr. Folan

Approximately 2,600 people were actually deported. As a result of the activities of the Garda National Immigration Bureau in enforcing those orders and in pursuing those who evaded them, a further 2,900 left under various forms of voluntary return. The pursuit of evasion has a very significant by-product because it encourages people in the process to recognise that there is a realistic prospect that they could be returned and they then leave voluntarily.

Deputy Curran

That figure comes to 5,000 to 6,000 people, less than 10% of the original figure.

Mr. Folan

Yes.

Deputy Curran

Some move on before the appeal process has adjudicated. More of them move on after receiving the adjudication from the first appeal process in respect of whether they will be granted asylum. We were obliged to put in place a special operation along the Border. As members are aware, the Dublin II regulations entitle us to return those people who have come from a European Union country back to it. A British representative works with us and similarly, we work with its immigration service. Great work has been done along the Border. We have co-operated with the French authorities to ensure that our seaports are not porous. Moreover, we have airline liaison officers to back up various hub airports in which we see weaknesses from time to time, to ensure we have in place a preventative process.

Deputy Curran

I thank Commissioner Conroy and Mr. Aylward.

Deputy Boyle

I have heard some intriguing language today. Mr. Aylward used terms like "influx". He used the term "very liberal" in a pejorative sense. He used terms like "voluntary abandonment". I want to ask him about the context in which some of these phrases were used. I refer in particular to that last phrase in respect of people who opted to use the system regarding Irish-born children. Is it fair to state there was a degree of official collusion in that process, inasmuch as people were encouraged to change processes on that basis and that many thousands did so? From my perspective as a constituency representative, many people have informed me that they had been in the standard asylum-seeking process and that subsequently, they were advised to look for a status on the basis of Irish-born children.

Mr. Aylward

Deputy Boyle

Is it not true that, in some jurisdictions, if the asylum process takes too long, access to a work permit system is subsequently permitted?

Mr. Aylward

We introduced such a provision but it proved to be a very unfortunate experiment. In 1999, we extended the permission to work to people who were in the system for more than one year but the impact of this was catastrophic. We would not take that route again if we could possibly avoid doing so. It was a catastrophe.

Deputy Boyle

My final question relates to applications, the Department and the Garda. I find it slightly odd that there appears to be some variance between the position taken by the Department in respect of people coming from certain countries and that taken by the Department of Foreign Affairs in respect of the safety of Irish people travelling to these countries. An example of such a country is Somalia, which has no government and which is in a state of complete anarchy. However, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform does not appear to have a position as to whether Somalis should automatically be considered asylum seekers. Many Somalis have been issued with deportation orders.

I am familiar with cases involving people who were granted refugee status, on the basis that their lives or livelihoods were at risk in their countries of origin, and who subsequently sought work here and were asked by the Garda to have their status justified — in the form of police reports, etc. — by the authorities in the countries from which they sought asylum. Why is there an inconsistency in that regard?

Mr. Aylward

Somalian cases are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I will not distinguish totally in respect of that country, but the Deputy is right in saying that there are countries where there are areas of disorder and chaos and other countries where there is none. The advice of the Department of Foreign Affairs relates to citizens here who are visibly different from the host population of the country to which they will go. The Department of Foreign Affairs carefully nuances its advice to would-be travellers as to where they might go in certain parts of particular countries.

The views taken by our applications and appeals authorities and our Department are guided, not just by the Department of Foreign Affairs, but by the United Nations. The data on which we place most of our reliance are the country reports of the UN's people on the ground. In that regard, we facilitate and support the arranging of advice and support by the UN's representative in Dublin. On asylum applicants, where someone claims he or she is fleeing the authorities in a state, we do not revert to those authorities to check them out.

Chairman

Will the Commissioner comment?

Commissioner Conroy

I did not get the question.

Chairman

In effect, if persons who have been granted asylum in this jurisdiction enter into employment, a condition of which is to get security clearance from the Garda Síochána, does the Garda cross-check the cases with the police forces in their countries of origin?

Commissioner Conroy

We do not generally get involved with employers of individuals in so far as giving references, notifying convictions and inquiring into backgrounds are concerned unless the situation is one in which the individual may be employed in the child care area wherein we have an obligation. If Deputy Boyle wishes to give me particular information, I will check the matter and revert to him, but it is not the Garda's function to inquire into someone's background for a private employer. We do not even do so in respect of Irish people.

Mr. Aylward

If somebody applied to work in the child care area and cited prior experience in that sector in another member state, I assume that such could only be checked with his or her consent, which would be a condition of applying for the employment. It may be better to deal with this particular matter bilaterally by the Deputy and the Commissioner.

A feature of the asylum process is that if someone claims he or she is from a state where repression occurs and his or her family is at risk from the civil authorities therein, we do not revert to those authorities.

Deputy Boyle

I have more than one example. The one I have in mind involves Garda clearance. The principle is pervasive in the Department in that when people who have been given residency subsequently seek family reunification, official state documents are sought from the countries from which asylum has been claimed. There is an inherent lack of logic in respect of the type of information sought by the Department and the positions in which the Department places people.

Mr. Aylward

I will happily check on the matter referred to by the Deputy. A deep irony of our system is that people who have attained asylum status here subsequently seek re-entry visas so that they may return to the countries from which they have allegedly fled in terror. This occurs every day. People who claim they have fled somewhere in terror are continually going back and forth to those countries.

Deputy Dennehy

The purpose of the Comptroller and Auditor General's exercise was to establish the effectiveness of arrangements to enforce deportation orders, but we have drifted from this subject. Upon examining matters since 1999, including several issues in 2003 and 2004, I am still trying to determine whether the situation has improved. The level of deportations followed through in 2005 was 10% whereas it was 30% in 1999. I appreciate that many factors have changed and we are not comparing like with like.

I will address Mr. Aylward's initial response. I appreciate that staff numbers have increased from 20 in 1996-97 to 700 currently, but Mr. Aylward stated the Refugee Act 1996 was technically inadequate to deal with the large-scale increase in applications. In what way was it inadequate?

Mr. Aylward

I would like to defer to my colleague in this regard. Part of the defect in the legislation is that it did not envisage structures sufficient to cope with the demand. Procedurally, it contains several loopholes and I am not sure whether it provided for the refugee legal service. We needed to introduce many structures later that were not conceived of or provided for by the legislation. I am working from recollection and must defer to the internal advice I received within the Department. Perhaps Mr. Folan could expand on what I have said.

Mr. Folan

The Secretary General touched on some of the key changes introduced in 2003, but others included carriers' liability provisions, which dealt with the illegal movement offshore but before embarkation, and the safe country of origin concept, which enables the Government to make a determination on whether particular countries are safe. Other key changes included serious credibility provisions to shift the onus onto the applicant to show credibility in terms of his or her application, provisions for faster processing, thereby enabling the Minister to prioritise particular caseloads, and a strengthening of provisions, that is, when people did not co-operate with the asylum process, determinations can be made deeming their claims as withdrawn. As such, the changes strengthened the processing and enforcement frameworks and the capacity of the State to deal with illegal movement.

Deputy Dennehy

That is important, given the tenfold increase in the number of applications between 1996 and 2002. I agree with Deputy Boyle's point, that is, we could become case-hardened and forget that we are dealing with individuals. At the time, there was a public perception that the State had lost control of the situation and anything could happen, that is, anyone could arrive. People must know that this situation has changed.

The deportation issue is just one aspect of the entire issue. On the matter raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General, has the effectiveness of the arrangements for deportation orders improved and how does the Department measure such? The debate has been confused by the reasons and figures provided.

Mr. Aylward

The figures have improved. In respect of Dublin II regulation transfer orders, that is, returning people to other member states where they previously sought asylum, 791 transfer orders have been signed, but only 326 have been put into effect, a success rate of more than 41%. Successful enforcement of the overall deportation orders is at approximately 21%, which may seem low, but favourably compares to international comparisons.

Deportation is the last resort. It has a salutary demonstrative effect that if someone does not leave, he or she will be deported. It is a tremendous struggle, as we are working in an environment where people invoke a generous constitutional right of access to the courts. They can do so at the last moment even if they have previously been before courts or gone through many other procedures. While we are still subject to legal ambush right up to the steps of the plane, we have a robust, honourable and effective immigration system. The United Nations states that there must be enforcement if the asylum process is genuine in a civilised state. Those abusing the process must be discouraged and returned where possible. Staff in the front hall and those in the Garda National Immigration Bureau are under great stress and strain but the project is being led well.

Deputy Dennehy

What level of co-operation exists with countries of origin? This may vary but the country to which we referred does not accept more than 50 people on any flight. What is the rationale of that?

Mr. Purcell stated that some of the 28 who failed to show were subsequently located in the United Kingdom and the African country. Who located them? The Garda Síochána does not follow up on cases once the person is abroad.

Mr. Aylward

Mr. Folan will respond to these questions because he is in direct contact with the relevant people.

Mr. Folan

The level of co-operation with various countries of origin is reflected in various readmission agreements negotiated with countries such as Romania and Nigeria. We interact constantly on an official and operational level between the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service and the Garda National Immigration Bureau and the authorities in countries to which we wish to return people. We must secure travel documents and landing rights and this process works well. Some countries have broad limits to the number of people they will accept on any one charter flight. We must accept that and we are not uncomfortable with a maximum of 60 people.

There is a high level of co-operation with some African countries, to the extent of having formal agreements with, for example, Nigeria and frequent contact between our officials and the countries with regard to those deported. I apologise if I misled the Deputy but we are referring to those who had been already deported by the United Kingdom to the African country. I apologise if the reply was misleading. The UK authorities can confirm that they have deported the people involved.

For example, someone may have exhausted the process in the UK, and is on the point of deportation when he or she skips over to Ireland. He or she may then exhaust the Irish asylum system and, at the point of deportation, return to the UK. The authorities could then detain the person and, because the person had already been through the process, the same judicial review process does not apply. The person can be then placed on the next available charter flight. When we check with the UK authorities, they can confirm that the person was detained and is now back in, for example, Nigeria.

Deputy Dennehy

Reading the earlier reply gives a completely different view.

Yesterday, the Chairman outlined what we have found. For driving misdemeanours people may nominate an outside person and give an incorrect address. There is concern about the deportation orders that are not received. People are not residing at the address they state. They move on and the material must be returned to the bureau. What effort is made by the Garda Síochána and the Department to locate the person even if he or she is not being deported?

Mr. Aylward

Mr. Aylward

I hope we have helped to persuade the committee we are in deadly earnest about confronting people who fraudulently seek the shelter of our State and the protections of our Constitution. We are rigorous in this regard. It would be a misapplication of effort to pursue people on whom the onus lies to pursue their applications. Certainly, when it is clear that people will not follow through their applications and are still in the jurisdiction, we pursue them rigorously to get them to leave the State voluntarily or otherwise.

Regarding translation, while in the early days it was hit and miss, a very strong contract is now in place from the immigration service whereby a wide range of interpreters is provided. A vast improvement has been made in that regard. Increased burdens are now on the Garda Síochána and the Courts Service, who work on solutions themselves. We look forward to taking a joint approach with both services and growing our contract arrangements which are very cost effective.

People invoke the argument that their presentation was misinterpreted or a nuance was missed. However, on the whole, the service has been found to be satisfactory. The interpreters are clear and lucid and points made have come across clearly to our people. To the best of my knowledge, we do not experience difficulties in understanding what is conveyed to us. If we did, we would change the agency with which we deal.

We want to get at the truth quickly and examine the facts to establish whether the story has credibility. The test we apply is not one of beyond all doubt but that a reasonable doubt exists that the person is telling the truth. It is not the most onerous of tests. We try to establish the truth or the probabilities in the case. We do not have a difficulty with interpretation.

Deputy Dennehy

A rather startling figure is given. I keep making the point at these meetings that this information may be historic and the situation may have changed. A reason given for delay is the significant time taken to translate the questionnaires each applicant receives and must complete. The delays range from six days to almost two years, which is an average of eight months. Perhaps that was true in 1999 and is not so now. If that is accurate, it is a frightening figure.

Mr. Folan

The Deputy is correct to state historical factors existed. Earlier this decade, more than 50% of applicants withdrew at a relatively early stage. Strategic decisions were taken not to complete the translation of questionnaires until it was known the applicant would attend for interview. That has changed. Since last November, all applicants are provided with a questionnaire and scheduled for interview on the date they arrive. In prioritised cases, which make up 40% of the total, translation is completed within two to three working days and is returned to the applicant within ten days of the date of application. In non-prioritised cases, it is translated within five to ten working days and returned to the applicant within 12 to 14 days. We are now in a position to schedule from the counter and deal with people quickly at first instance. The same philosophy is applied in terms of translation.

Deputy Dennehy

Mr. Folan will understand the reason we need this evidence is because we must make a report on this matter. I also want to ask about the 500 or 600 cases waiting in the judicial process and delays mentioned of one to three years from the date a negative recommendation is made by the commission or tribunal to the time the Department sends a deportation order to the Garda bureau. Why do these delays occur?

Mr. Folan

Mr. Aylward

The chairman of the Barr tribunal is finalising his report. His hearings have been at an end since December 2004. He will be forwarding his report to the Clerk of the Dáil imminently. That is the position in respect of the Barr tribunal, as I recall it.

A recruitment phase will commence in August in the context of the overall Garda recruitment programme. That will be followed by a phase in which applications are received and processed and the bona fides and medical status of applicants are checked. Applicants for the reserve will be subject to the same checks as people who wish to join the permanent force. Successful applicants will enter a training and deployment phase. We will entertain applications from August and process them in September or October. In addition to internal costs, which are not factored into the reserve allocation, costs of training, uniforms and expenses allowances may fall to be paid in 2006, although in the vast majority of cases, payments will not be due until 2007.

We are only at the lift-off stage where the reserve is concerned. Draft regulations have been prepared for the recruitment and deployment of the reserve and are being considered by the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights and by Garda staff associations at the conciliation council.

Chairman

To continue Mr. Aylward's lift-off metaphor, I hope all phases of the rocket activate before it reaches orbit. Is it intended to deploy the reserve regionally or will reservists be deployed in every Garda district from the outset?

Mr. Aylward

The Commissioner made it clear to the Minister that he proposes to introduce the reserve on a phased pilot basis. It is not his intention that they will turn up in every Garda station in the country by Christmas.

Commissioner Conroy

My intention is to deploy reservists in each region on a pilot basis so that we can build the necessary experience and decide on our next steps. I expect every district in the country to have reservists.

Chairman

Is there any truth to the rumour that reservists will wear paramilitary or militia-style uniforms?

Commissioner Conroy

No, they will wear the same uniforms as members of the regular force. However, they will bear distinguishing marks to indicate their reserve status.

Deputy Burton

I have questions about the register of sexual offenders which arise out of the public disquiet on the Mr. A case. I understand that, in the sense of a collated database, a register does not exist. Mr. Aylward was previously the director of the Prison Service. If somebody is convicted of a sexual offence against a child or ordered by the courts to be placed on a sex offenders register, prison authorities are responsible for notifying the individual's local Garda station and, thereafter, the individual is required to keep gardaí informed of changes of address. Is that a statutory responsibility and to what extent are the movements of individuals recorded?

A number of cases arose recently in the UK involving persons convicted of serious crimes, including sexual assaults, murder and rape, in accession states who then moved to the UK and carried out further serious assaults. The UK authorities have spoken at some length about the absence of a Europe-wide system on sex offenders. There may be regular movements of such persons to Ireland and the UK, where they join associates from criminal gangs. Is the Department aware of that problem and has it done anything to reduce the risks for people in Ireland?

Mr. Aylward

The Sex Offenders Act 2001 provides a statutory basis for the collating of information about sex offenders, generally called the sex offenders register. While I was director of the Prison Service, a system was established with the Garda Síochána whereby we advise the force when a prisoner in this category is within a few months of release, primarily so that the victim or his or her family could know and could share any concerns or fears they might harbour. In that regard the Garda for many years has been advised by the service.

Deputy McGuinness

I am surprised that neither the Department nor the Commissioner has taken up the offer from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to share its expertise and technology. I visited that centre a number of years ago and conveyed its offer to the Department. The issue has not gone away and a number of cases are unresolved, meaning families continue to grieve over loved ones who are still missing. They continue to fight for a special unit or at least something with a public profile.

This is what the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Washington offers. The centre works to a model of best practice which it is willing to share with us, although there seems to be a reluctance to accept its offer. The Department should review its policy on that point. Senator Hillary Clinton's office in New York indicated that its senior information official is also available to Department officials. I urge both the Commissioner and the Department to create a greater ongoing awareness around the subject of missing people. The families would welcome somebody who understood their plight.

Mr. Aylward

I am relatively new to this beat and have not been in dialogue with the Deputy. I am willing to consider the suggestion, using diplomatic channels. The centre to which the Deputy refers serves a great democracy of 200 million people. Scale is an issue and a single national centre makes a lot of sense in a vast country such as the US, given the substantial numbers involved. While every case is a tragedy and is devastating for the person's family, the number of missing children in this State is minute compared with the United States. We would need to contextualise any offer we receive to measure the potential benefit of such a centre. Operationally we tend to defer to the best advice of the professional police service we have, and to its leader who is present today.

Commissioner Conroy

The Deputy doubts that we have secured the best information technology programmes, but we have linked up with the US system showing the age progression of individuals missing for a number of years. We have not been retarded on the issue and I assure members that the resources available to other services to locate missing persons are available to us. We have never declined to avail of the best technical tools and training, nor will we do so. Demands are placed on me every day for resources to set up specialist units throughout the country. I have met countless Deputies in my time and there is a constant pressure to facilitate resources for different areas. From an investigative point of view, I assure Deputies that we will follow up any leads or clues.

Deputy McGuinness

The technology used in missingkids.ie is not the best available for cases of missing children. If the Commissioner visited the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Washington, he would see the best technology available and the centre has said it will make its software and expertise available to Ireland. I agree with Mr. Aylward. I am from a business background and would not expect the model in America to be suitable for this country. However, I am sure we could learn from it and tailor an Irish model that would be cost effective and deliver a much better service than we have at the moment for profiling missing persons. I need only cite the cases of Jo Jo Dollard, Annie McCarrick and others who have still not been found and whose profiles seem to have diminished.

While I was in Washington, a young child who had been missing for ten years was found. That was down to constant contact with the family and the fact that a constant message was conveyed to the public by way of the private sector and the FBI, which supports the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. That constant effort brought success at the end of the line. Too many people have gone missing in Ireland and we do not devote enough funding to the issue. We do not seek the best help that is available. I mentioned Hillary Clinton's office because she was responsible for the legislation on Code Adam and Amber Alert, signed by George W. Bush while I was there, but I do not see any such imagination in this country to help the families of those who have gone missing.

Asking for funding today also helps me to raise awareness of the issue. Both the Commissioner and the Department must recognise the trauma that families suffer. They must accept the assistance available from the UK, which they only do to a limited and insufficient degree at the moment. I urge them to review what is a serious issue and, regardless of the numbers, to continue to search for the likes of Callan girl Jo Jo Dollard on an ongoing and open-ended basis. The families do not want endless grief. I call for whatever funding is necessary to improve the situation. I am not naive enough to expect models to be created on American lines but I am serious about ensuring we have in place policies and funding to deliver the necessary supports for families.

With regard to the numbers of gardaí employed throughout the country, I wonder about the barracks which have been closed down and where we have what is known in rural Ireland as the "green man" in operation. I am not asking for numbers. This "green man" technology would constitute a building — some in poor condition from a maintenance perspective — with nobody there except for a single garda on occasions.

I wonder about the efficient use of the building relative to its value in the current Irish economy and property market. Is best value for money being achieved with regard to the closed barracks? Is best value for money being achieved on the "green man" technology and similar equipment? Is funding available to improve the technology, which is now quite dated?

Is it best value for money for new barracks to be created in areas throughout the country where one garda is operating, despite a whole new building being in place? What steps are being taken to ensure better use for those new buildings, or to dispose of those which will never come into use?

Commissioner Conroy

I accept the "green man" technology has not provided an effective and efficient mode of communication. We are considering the technology, and it has outlived its usefulness. Getting parts to service the equipment is quite difficult at the moment. We are looking at new ways of dealing with that.

I accept that some Garda buildings are not what we would like to see. We have been working with the OPW to ensure that the office will look at all our buildings. I know, from European journals, that it will act soon with regard to a substantial number of our buildings throughout the country.

The Deputy mentioned some new buildings housing one garda. It is important that we have a Garda presence in small areas. There are problems in villages which may not have been there five or ten years ago. We constantly get complaints of public order issues, for example. If there is a garda living and stationed in the area, he or she may not work all hours in that sub-district, but he or she would be part of a district cadre of gardaí. They will ensure, working with district personnel, that the patch is well-policed. It may not be what the Deputy would like, but it is a way of policing the area. We hope to see new units going in where there are one-man stations. We are not in the business of closing down stations.

Deputy McGuinness

On the question of technology, it was suggested that something would be done where the "green man" technology is housed. The building where it is housed may not be in use except for the technology inside. What is the plan for these? Will new technology be introduced to these buildings?

The villages and towns where these Garda barracks were closed over the years are now completely different. The populations may have doubled and trebled in some cases. These urban centres need a Garda presence, and the "green man" technology is not servicing those communities. It would be impossible for it to do so. The nearest Garda station may not be servicing the communities either. If the buildings will be sold or the Garda move on from them, what will take their place? Will the Commissioner explain his comment regarding European journals?

Commissioner Conroy

We are hoping that standard units, some of which already exist around the country in small villages, will be capable of dealing with policing needs in an area. It would not be my policy to have people in Garda stations; it would be to have them out on public thoroughfares working with the people.

We are conscious that the "green man" technology is not servicing the needs of the people, but we are also conscious that almost every person now has a mobile phone. The pattern of people going to Garda stations has seen considerably reduced numbers. Everything is now done by telephone. The only time a person will go into a station now would be to produce documents, such as driving licence and insurance or to get forms for passports, etc., signed. If there is a report of a crime it generally comes in via mobile phone or land line. It is mostly via mobile phone.

The idea of the public going in and out of stations is disappearing. Nevertheless we would be conscious that populations in small villages are growing, as the Deputy noted. We must ensure we have a presence in such locations. In the long term we would be looking for suitable units, with an exchange perhaps of present stations, so the taxpayer gets good value from what is put in place of present stations in many villages.

Mr. Aylward

I wish to interject, not to add to the discussion regarding stations, but on the point of benchmarking and best practice. I would not want the Committee of Public Accounts to go away with the idea that we are closed to this, as either a Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform or a justice system. We are keen to benchmark and enhance policing practices in the State.

Taking that into account, on 1 July the first Chief Inspector of the Garda Síochána Inspectorate will take up office. She is from the US. Our intention is to assist and support the Garda in benchmarking, over time, all its efforts against best international practice. That has always been done, but a new structure and constructive dialogue will be produced to do it. If a country has a practice and does it in a particular way, it does not mean the model will apply to us. We must check if a particular practice in a country makes sense for us in this jurisdiction. We intend to continue looking outwards, scanning the horizon for new ideas, technologies and practices which will benefit the public.

Deputy McGuinness

If that is the case, has the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children been examined in detail? Is the model worth pursuing or examining to see if some of its procedures could be used in Ireland?

Mr. Aylward

I stated that I had not cited this correspondence. I undertook to pursue the matter through diplomatic channels.

Chairman

Mr. Aylward indicated he would examine the situation and communicate with the committee. That is a reasonable answer under the circumstances.

Mr. Purcell

I have two brief observations on the chapter. I acknowledged at the outset that the business of deporting people who have failed in their application for asylum is clearly a complex operation. I noted the improvement that has been made, particularly in application processing and appeals. Deputy Dennehy also referred to the translation of questionnaires, etc. The improvement there is more recent.

It is important that improvements in those areas feed into improvement of the end process. There is scope for improvement. I am not privy to the proposals being developed within the Department for improving and streamlining aspects of the operation; it is good to hear that moves are afoot.

With regard to the so-called evaders, I mentioned at the outset that this was not a uniquely Irish problem. My counterparts in the UK carried out an examination of value for money in a similar situation relating to returning failed asylum applicants. That was two years ago and they identified 155,000 people in that category. The Home Office's immigration and nationality directorate had no system for collecting firm information on that figure. I noted that they had started electronic security checks on passengers departing from the UK on certain routes. I do not know whether this will be in our plans, but improvements in technology give greater scope for tracking people.

It is understandable that the chartering of aircraft is necessary in many circumstances and may even be an economical way of doing things. The trick is to make it the most economical way if one chooses to go down that road. Earlier this month, in response to a parliamentary question, the Minister stated that 723 people had been deported on 23 charter flights in the last four years. If my sums are correct, it works out at an average of around 31 people per flight, with each flight costing €137,000. This should be seen in light of what we have heard today on the difficulties in assembling a group to go on these flights. Either Mr. Folan or Mr. Aylward, the Accounting Officer, mentioned that the target for such flights is in the range of 40 to 70 people. There is scope for improvement.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Purcell. Is it agreed that we dispose of Votes 19 and 20? Agreed. Is it agreed that we dispose of chapter 5.1? Agreed. There is no other business. The agenda for Thursday, 29 June 2006 is the Comptroller and Auditor General Value for Money Report No. 49: Department of Health and Children — waste management in hospitals, and also Comptroller and Auditor General Value for Money Report No. 52: Health Service Executive — provision of disability services by non-profit organisations.

The witnesses withdrew.

The committee adjourned at 2.25 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Thursday, 26 June 2006.