Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Oct 1999

Vol. 509 No. 5

Adjournment Debate Matters. - European Summit: Statements.

The Taoiseach

I attended the Special European Council in Tampere from 15 to 16 October 1999 with my colleague the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, who deputised for the Minister for Foreign Affairs. As has become almost traditional at this point, I held a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Blair on the eve of the summit at which we reviewed the agenda for Tampere and, of course, the current situation in Northern Ireland and the progress of the review being undertaken by Senator Mitchell.

The Council was addressed by the President of the European Parliament, Madame Nicole Fontaine. This was her first attendance at the European Council since her election and she spoke on a variety of issues of concern to the Parliament including justice and home affairs, the role of Parliament in drafting the European Charter, the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference and the promotion of better relations between the Council, the Commission and the Parliament.

With the adoption of economic and monetary union, and the completion of the Single Market and the resulting freedom of movement across the internal borders of the Union, it is almost inevitable that the next major challenge for the EU would be to accelerate the process of convergence in the justice and home affairs area. With an increasing, amount of intra-Union business being conducted, with leisure and business travel rising and with growing numbers of member state nationals resident in other member states. the issues of protection, assistance and access to redress, in both civil and criminal matters. clearly need to be addressed. This was the primary goal of the Tampere Summit. The holding of this Special Council sends out clear messages: first, to the Union's citizens that their leaders are listening and acting upon their concerns and second, to the rest of the world about the values and aspirations of the Union.

The core agenda for Tampere had three main elements: a common EU asylum and migration policy, a genuine European area of justice and a Union-wide fight against crime. Decisions were taken on a package of measures that will be of lasting benefit to the citizen. While there will be the opportunity to examine particular aspects of the progress being made at each European Council meeting, I fully supported the decision to review the entire area at our meeting in December 2001. I will also touch on a number of other issues towards the end of this statement, such as the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and Enlargement, which arose in our discussions.

Asylum and migration policy is an area of great complexity and one in which member states have been forced to resort to unilateral actions in recent years. However, as demonstrated by the scale of the tragedies of Bosnia and Kosovo, no individual member state can, on its own, satisfactorily resolve the problems which arise in dealing with asylum seekers, refugees and migrants. Equally, this is an area where action by a single state can impact directly on other member states, for instance, leading to waves of secondary migration within the Union. Unfortunately, in the past 14 years, since co-operation in this field began, only one significant legal instrument, the Dublin Convention, has been agreed. Given the increase in numbers seeking asylum and refugee status and subsidiary forms of temporary protection, it is clearly time for the Union to act.

It is important that our discussions of this topic at Tampere and thereafter are seen to be routine and the exercise by leaders of their duty to manage asylum policy and migration flows into and within the Union. Prior to the summit there were some fears among the various NGOs who work in this area that a so-called "fortress Europe" approach would result from Tampere. These fears were expressed directly to me in submissions and at meetings between officials of my Department and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform with representatives of organisations such as UNHCR, Amnesty International and the Irish Council for Refugees.

Examination of the conclusions shows that these fears were unfounded. Instead, along with all our partners, I insisted that the Union's policies should be grounded in the spirit of the Geneva refugee convention and that, to the extent that harmonisation of admission, reception, integration and other procedures occurs, it should be undertaken in consultation with the relevant institutions, especially the UNHCR and NGOs.

The Commission which, with the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty, has new powers of initiative in this area has been asked to bring forward proposals to allow for the establishment of a common European asylum system. The system is to include clear rules and common standards as to the state responsible for processing asylum applications and receiving asylum seekers. It will also seek to codify refugee status and subsidiary forms of temporary protection.

The conclusions reflect the real concern of EU leaders that, along with the procedures for the better management of asylum and migration, such as Eurodac, which are by their nature control orientated, the Union should be seen to tackle in a genuine way the issue of the integration of those who have come to its territories. The treatment of third country nationals by the Governments of member states should be fair and be seen to be so if we are to combat racism and xenophobia. Member states are encouraged to draw up national programmes to combat discrimination and we in Ireland, with the coming into force of the Employment Equality Act and enactment in the near future of the Equal Status Bill, will be ahead of a number of countries in this field. It is noteworthy that EU leaders called for third country nationals to be granted rights in all member states, as close as possible to those enjoyed by EU citizens. The conclusions also endorse the proposal that long-term legally resident third country nationals should have the opportunity to gain citizenship.

Inevitably, as was demonstrated during the Kosovan and Bosnian crises, mass movements of refugees have cost implications for all member states. While Ireland received some funding toward the cost of accommodating those from Kosovo, an ad hoc approach is not appropriate. Accordingly, I fully supported the proposal to consider the establishment of a financial reserve that would be available to assist member states in such circumstances and I would have preferred a concrete decision on this point.

We are all too familiar with the complexity of the legal system in this country and the high costs that can arise in pursuing cases or claims. The difficulties can be magnified many times when cases have to be pursued in other jurisdictions within the Union. As I indicated in my opening remarks, the frequency with which such cases occur is rising as the volume of intra-Union trade grows, and the number of EU citizens working and living outside their home country increases. Clearly the simplification of legal procedures offers some scope to alleviate the problem but much more is necessary by way of mutual recognition of court decisions, and harmonisation and approximation of legislation. There are very different constitutional and legal traditions across the Union and so it would not be feasible at this point, for instance, to take on a global programme of harmonisation. However, priority areas such as family law and small business claims have been identified for early action.

A number of key actions were identified at Tampere which will assist the ordinary citizen in accessing the legal system of their own and other member states. These include the publication of user guides on judicial co-operation and the legal systems of member states, the establishment of easily accessible information systems and the production of multilingual forms and documents. The Council also called on the Commission to bring forward proposals to establish minimum standards in relation to adequate legal aid in trans-national cases.

Another area where minimum standards are to be established is in relation to the rights of victims of crime. We have experienced a very positive reaction in Ireland to the recently published Victims' Charter and look forward, therefore, to the introduction of minimum standards across the Union on the protection of victims and the provision of assistance to them. The proposed minimum standards will also cover the issue of access to appropriate compensation. In relation to the longer term issues of convergence in the civil law area, the Council called for a report by 2001 on approximation of legislation.

The creation of the European area of justice which I have outlined, at least as far as the criminal area is concerned, is focused very much on dealing with situations which have occurred, namely, with the successful prosecution of crime. However, clearly the prevention and detection of crime, particularly organised crime, is a matter where Union-wide action is needed. There are a number of successful mechanisms in place, such as Europol, the European Judicial Network, mutual legal assistance, Interpol and the joint action adopted by the Council, making it a criminal offence to participate in a criminal organisation in the member states of the European Union. In Tampere, however, we examined ways to build on these and develop new instruments, procedures and institutions.

In relation to crime prevention at local level, we have a very useful community-based model in the form of the Neighbourhood Watch and Community Alert schemes and the drugs task forces. These models should be examined with a view to strengthening them because they focus on the crime, much of which is drug related, which directly impacts on the ordinary person. Through the network of national crime prevention authorities which is to be established, we can share our experience with our partners and learn from the successful crime prevention strategies they have implemented. The proposal for a Community funded programme of co-operation between national bodies, aimed at tackling juvenile, urban and drug-related crime in the first instance, is to be examined and is one I would strongly support.

At national and cross-border level, the Council called for the investigative teams provided for in the Amsterdam Treaty to be set up without delay. These would focus on trafficking in drugs and human beings and terrorism and would be supported by Europol. Furthermore, a task force of European police chiefs is to be established which would also work with Europol in tackling cross-border crime. Events in Ireland demonstrate the utility of such actions and show the value of such teams.

These measures are part of a package which involves the strengthening over time of Europol and its greater involvement with authorities at national level in the conduct of joint investigations of cross-border crime. Similarly, the establishment of EUROJUST is to be welcomed. It will bring together prosecuting authorities, magistrates, judges and police personnel to support and co-ordinate the prosecution of organised crime. The necessary legal instrument is to be brought forward by the end of 2001. I welcome the proposal to develop a European police college which will begin its life as a network of existing colleges and importantly, in view of the Union's impending enlargement, allow for the participation of the relevant bodies in the applicant states. In relation to action against drugs, we have seen the implementation of the Commission's action plan up to the year 2000 dealing with demand reduction, and the Council called for the adoption before Helsinki of the 2000-04 European strategy against drugs.

The European Council wanted to give particular impetus to combating money laundering, given its relationship with so many aspects of organised crime. I outlined in some detail the success we have experienced in Ireland from the establishment of the Criminal Assets Bureau. I indicated that the integrated approach of police, taxation and welfare personnel working together and supported by appropriate legislation had lead to the successful seizure of criminal assets and prosecutions. I mentioned that the financial action task force of the Group of Seven, G7, suggested that the Criminal Assets Bureau could serve as a model for other countries. I am pleased to report that the conclusions call for the approximation of criminal law in regard to the tracing, freezing and confiscation of funds.

Ireland is at the forefront of tackling money laundering and will shortly, by way of regulation, given the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 1994, extend reporting obligations to additional professions such as solicitors, auctioneers, estate agents and accountants, irrespective of any decision at EU level to extend the scope of the 1991 money laundering directive. We will press for the extension of the directive to these professions and for the early adoption of the extension.

The issue of so-called "safe havens" must be tackled urgently if the Union's actions are not to be undermined. I welcome the signals given by the UK at the informal Justice Council of 11 October of its willingness to deal with the problems posed by Gibraltar, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

President Prodi has suggested that a score board system, similar to that employed in relation to the Single Market, should be used to monitor the progress of convergence across the whole justice and home affairs area. This is an approach I welcomed as it identifies in a very public way the areas of progress and where the obstacles lie. It will be recalled that in June last the Cologne European Council decided that a European charter of fundamental rights should be developed. At Tampere, the nature of the body to be charged with the formulation of the charter was endorsed. The body will consist of 62 members. Sixteen of these will be drawn from the European Parliament, 30 will be drawn from the national parliaments, 15 will be representatives of Heads of State and Government, and there will be a representative of President Prodi. A number of other institutions and representative groups will attend as observers or be consulted, as will the applicant states.

The body will elect its own President and, when consensus is reached on a final draft, submit the draft charter to the European Council for adoption. The aim of the charter is to bring together, in a single politically binding declaration, all the fundamental rights applicable at Union level to make these rights more visible to the citizens of the Union.

Two days before the summit, the Commission published its report on the enlargement process, which included detailed country by country analysis of the current status of each of the 12 applicant states and Turkey. No decisions will be taken on enlargement until the Helsinki Council. Tampere, however, offered a useful opportunity for Leaders to note the ongoing progress and to consider informally the matters they will discuss in December. I welcomed the report and the pro posed revised arrangements for the conduct of the negotiations with individual applicants.

The Tampere Summit, taking place as it did in the immediate aftermath of the coup d' état in Pakistan and the rejection by the US Senate of the proposal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, provided an opportunity for the European Council to make known its views and two separate declarations on these matters were also issued at the conclusion of the Council. My colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Fahey, will address these matters in his contribution. The ongoing resolution of the situation in East Timor and the conflict in Chechnya were also discussed by Heads of State and Government during their working dinner.

Two other current events were noted at Tampere, the taking up of his new post, as Secretary General of the Council-High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, by Mr. Javier Solana on Monday of this week and the retirement of Mr. Jurgen Trumpf as Secretary General to the Council. I had the opportunity to mark Mr. Trumpf's departure and thank him on behalf of the Government during his recent visit to Dublin when he accompanied Prime Minister Lipponen.

Prime Minister Lipponen and his colleagues are to be congratulated on the outcome of the summit. It was a difficult task for a country holding its first Presidency but, as one would expect of the Finnish, the task was taken on enthusiastically and, on foot of thorough preparation, completed successfully. I am confident the summit will be remembered as a watershed in the Union's dealings in this area and I look forward to similarly positive outcomes from the Helsinki Summit in December.

Mr. J. Bruton

The Tampere Summit in many regards has its origin in the Irish Presidency of the European Union in 1996, where we stated that safe streets should be one of the objectives of European action. That led directly to the provisions in the Amsterdam Treaty which, in turn, formed the basis of the decisions which were taken at Tampere. The European Union must show that it is relevant to its citizens and one way in which it can do that is by dealing with day to day problems they face.

As any public representative will be aware, drugs and crime are prominent concerns in the minds of Irish people, not just in urban areas but now increasingly in rural areas also. Drugs are a pervasive problem directed at children and young people. A small tablet changing hands for a few pounds in a teenage disco in rural Ireland may seem peripheral to global crime but it is not. Every illicit drug deal, no matter how small in value, fuels a global international criminal system which is imposing chains on the future of our people. Drugs are about money, illegally earned money, and where there is a drug trade there is also money laundering.

I welcome the decisions taken at the European Council at Tampere. We must recognise that, as the US Treasury Secretary pointed out recently, the activities of the Russian Mafia now represent a threat to the integrity of the global financial system and to our civilisation. The recent allegations that up to $10 billion in suspected Russian funds were laundered through accounts in the Bank of New York are very serious.

Some estimates suggest that almost half the entire wealth of the world is held in offshore bank accounts. Offshore banking of course has legitimate purposes. Offshore holding companies can enable multinational companies to exploit international markets effectively and this helps them achieve tax effectiveness in a legitimate way, but not all offshore banking has such a benign purpose, as we will be aware from the offshore banking activities of the Nazis in Switzerland during the World War II.

Mr. Quinn

Or a bit closer to home.

Mr. J. Bruton

Or a bit closer to home, but these were moneys obtained from the gold in the fillings of Jews, who were being roasted in the concentration camps, which Nazis placed in Swiss banks.

The laundering of money from criminals has become a highly professional business. Educated, sophisticated, suave people are engaged in this activity. Highly qualified bankers, accountants and lawyers are providing their services to criminals. Increasingly, criminals are not all crude people with accents which would be strange in this House. Increasingly, they are sophisticated, well spoken people who are just criminal in their purpose and activity.

While only between 3 and 4 per cent of the world's population use illicit drugs, the world trade of $400 million in these drugs is equivalent to 8 per cent of international trade. The world's illicit drugs trade is now bigger than the trade in iron and steel and about as big as the trade in textiles. The profit margins in the drugs trade are enormous. The gross profit margins at retail level for crack cocaine and heroin are 300 per cent and 100 per cent, respectively.

The drugs trade has become so powerful that it can override sovereign states. The money at the disposal of individual drug barons now exceeds the gross national product of countries like Bolivia, Peru, Columbia, Burma and Afghanistan. These people can literally buy and sell states and Governments and they can buy elections in some cases – we have almost reached that point.

Only a tiny proportion of the profits of drug production stay in the Third World. The difficulty is that production of the plants which are used for drugs is so much more profitable than other forms of agriculture. It is only by making the necessary investment in infrastructure in countries, such as Peru, Bolivia, Columbia, Afghanistan and Burma, for the distribution of—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Silence in the Gallery please.

Mr. J. Bruton

This criminal trade begets corruption, which is becoming a major concern of the International Monetary Fund. Despite the successes of the Criminal Assets Bureau, Irish legislation on money laundering, although quite up to date, is not comprehensive. For example, the purchase of a single premium life assurance policy has become increasingly popular as a way of shifting money but insurance brokers are not covered by the current requirements to report suspicious transactions of this nature. Buying property is another way of laundering money and estate agents are not currently required to report transactions. Equally, lawyers who handle money are not covered by the current legislation. Therefore, while we have every reason to congratulate ourselves on the effectiveness of the legislation which was pioneered by Deputies Quinn and Owen, as Ministers, and others, we must recognise that there are gaps still to be filled in this legislation.

The Moriarty and Flood tribunals are engaging in retrospective analyses of what happened in the past. It is appropriate to attribute blame, but it is also appropriate to develop a constructive programme of action for the future to avoid a recurrence of these sorts of activity. One of the issues, about which I have been concerned and in which Deputy Flanagan of the Fine Gael Party has been particularly active, is that of modernising our corruption legislation. The legislation against corrupt activities by politicians, planning officers or people in any area who are capable of trafficking influence consists of the Sale of Offices Act, 1809, an Act concerning corruption, and amending legislation passed in 1916. Therefore, 1916 is the date of the most recent Irish corruption legislation. That legislation was not passed here but in Westminster during the Great War because of concern about war profiteering, which was a matter of great interest to Lloyd George. In the long period of sovereign Irish statehood we have not passed any legislation to deal with corruption in terms of shifting the burden of proof or establishing greater clarity as to the types of activity that would create a presumption of corrupt motive.

The programme agreed at Tampere was comprehensive and deserves support. I am glad work is to be done not just on mutual recognition of judgments but also on some common guidelines for free legal aid. It is important that people have a system that is not only theoretically but financially accessible. As regards substantive law, that is civil law, an overall study is to be requested to approximate the civil law of all the member states of the European Union. The Council is to have a report on this matter in 2001, which is not much more than 18 months away. This must rate as the single biggest task ever undertaken by the European Union. It is a huge but necessary task and while I wish everyone well, I wonder if the Euro pean Union has the resources and capacity to do this type of work. It will require tremendous effort, not just because of the diversity of the provisions of the civil law in different member countries but the very different jurisprudential assumptions that are made by countries in the way they apply the law and interpret particular legal concepts. I strongly welcome the proposals for EUROJUST, a proposed co-ordination of European prosecutors which will run in parallel with Europol which is already operating in the police field.

It is important that we have a degree of uniformity with regard to bank confidentiality. As we know through the various tribunals, we are now going behind bank confidentiality with regard to specific concerns. It is fair to say that some countries have much more protective approaches to confidentiality than others, Luxembourg being a case in point. Unless there can be agreement on this, the banking systems of the countries that maintain the maximum confidentiality, regardless of the public concerns that might require confidentiality to be set aside, will attract deposits from other countries. People should not profit from that. It is important that issue be dealt with and confronted honestly by heads of governments. I would be interested to hear from the Government how far we have got with that.

My only criticism of the summit is in regard to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. I note that at Tampere a body has been established to draw up this charter. It will consist of 62 members, 16 of whom will be drawn from the European Parliament, 30 from national parliaments, 15 from representatives of heads of governments and a representative of President Prodi. Have the heads of government of the European Union ever heard of the Council of Europe? Is the Council of Europe not the body that contains the existing fundamental law? Why is the European Union setting up a body to draw up a new charter of fundamental rights and leaving the Council of Europe out of it? Surely the Council of Europe, which already has in its membership most if not all the countries applying to join the European Union, should be closely associated with any body of this kind? Is it the case that the institutional jealousy that exists between the civil service of the European Commission and that of the European Union is such that the jealous Commission people do not want to let the Council of Europe in on the act? If that is the case, it should not be allowed. Why did this happen? I have experience of the Council of Europe. I will not overstate its wonderfulness; it is an intergovernmental body and, therefore, moves extremely slowly because it moves at the speed of the lowest mover in the trail, so to speak. It has 50 years of work behind it. It existed before the European Union was created. It was created under a treaty in 1949 and has a very effective record in human rights. On a number of occasions it has made judgments against the Government and forced it to change the law. It has tremendous moral force. What is the European Union doing setting up a separate charter of fundamental freedoms that does not include the Council of Europe in the drawing up of it let alone take account of what has already been achieved by it? I do not expect an answer to the other questions I posed, but I hope the Minister of State will reply to that one.

Mr. Quinn

The Tampere summit was the first dedicated to the discussion of what is known in Eurospeak as the third pillar or justice and home affairs in everyday parlance. A summit dedicated to these issues was made possible by the final ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty by France. The third pillar was established by the Maastricht Treaty and inaugurated meetings of justice and home affairs Ministers meeting outside the Council of Europe framework.

The further development of the third pillar was one of the key arguments advanced by supporters of European integration at the time of the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty. The incorporation of many of its elements such as police co-operation against international organised crime, co-operation on emigration issues and overall judicial co-operation, were held out as indications of the European Union being prepared to tackle issues of concern and interest to its citizens. The purpose of the Tampere summit, as I understand it, was to ensure that the possibilities opened up by the Amsterdam Treaty to make the Union a place where its citizens and others can move freely and safely within it while, at the same time, protecting them from those who would use these freedoms for malicious ends. Hence the concentration at Tampere on crime and interest in agencies such as the Irish Criminal Assets Bureau which has proved to be a very successful organisation in tackling organised crime and drug gangs in particular.

There was welcome agreement to increase the resources available to Europol and the significance of data pooling between member states; discussions on the compatibility of the legal codes of individual member states and the establishment of a charter of victims' rights. However, none of these proposals represents brand new ground for the Union but more work in progress than anything earth-shatteringly new. Nonetheless, the emphasis on the victims of crime is to be welcomed.

As I raised with the Taoiseach in the House yesterday, there remains a space to be carved out within our judicial system between the absolute independence of our prosecution systems and the need for some accountability for overall policy direction. Before I turn to the two items that warranted most publicity from the summit, I put on record a welcome for the proposal to begin work on a draft charter of fundamental human rights. The proposal to involve national parliaments in this exercise is also to be welcomed, yet it will be rendered ineffective without the accompanying intention to give real effect to any charter that is developed. I support the observations made by Deputy Bruton on the existence not only of a European charter of human rights but an effective court with an established corpus of jurisprudence and enforcement, indeed the transposing into domestic law, for which this country has some direct experience, of an existing system embodying the existing members of the European Union and, by definition, the applicant or potential applicant members states.

I support Deputy Bruton's request for a response, either today or at some future date, from the Taoiseach or the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Fahey, regarding whether the existence of such an institution or set of institutions was a matter for discussion at Tampere and whether we are now attempting to re-invent the wheel because of what Deputy Bruton described as "institutional jealousy". In that context, I would welcome a commitment to incorporate into any charter of rights developed in respect of the European treaties at the next revision something that is tangible and real and to which European citizens can relate.

It is perhaps a coincidence that a summit which concentrated a great deal of its time on the issues of asylum and immigration also dealt with a report prepared by those individuals who have become known colloquially as the "three wise men". As Christmas approaches it is interesting to note that the original three wise men were migrants. The Bible does not inform us whether they remained in Bethlehem but they travelled a long distance to witness a new truth as they perceived it. Perhaps we should have regard to that historical reality.

While the summit's conclusions in respect of asylum and immigration push all the right buttons, so to speak, the conclusions, for example, refer to freedoms that "should not be regarded as the exclusive preserve of the Union's own citizens. Its very existence acts as a draw to many others worldwide who cannot enjoy the freedom Union citizens take for granted. It would be in contradiction with Europe's traditions to deny such freedom to those whose circumstances lead them justifiably to seek access to our territory." It is difficult to square that position with those adopted prior to the summit.

The Taoiseach went to Tampere to develop common policies on asylum and immigration. Perhaps some of our European partners have a better idea as to what are Ireland's policies on these issues, but they would do well to inform the Taoiseach and me. The simple truth of the matter is that despite this being an issue of growing importance, the Government has developed no policy at all in respect of it. Indeed, any progressive or reasoned measures seem capable of being taken only against the implacable opposition of the responsible Minister. On yesterday's Order of Business, the Taoiseach stated that the Govern ment does have a policy in this area. I challenge him to inform us of the nature of that policy. If it does exist, it should be published and debated in the House.

In that context, there are a number of points I wish to raise. First, legal immigration into this country is running at approximately 20,000 people a year. These people are, for the most part, returning Irish exiles, members of the European Union or American or even Australian students. Their place in the software belts around Dublin, Cork and Limerick is a phenomenon of which we are becoming increasingly aware. Buying a cup of coffee in this city, for example, would be practically impossible if it was not for these new labourers who are doing here what young Irish people have always done and continue to do abroad. If the economy is to continue to grow at its current pace, it is important that it continues to draw this reserve pool of labour. By and large these immigrants are well educated, skilled and English speaking, the kind of immigration described in papers issued by economists in Kenmare at the weekend as that which this country requires.

Our other so-called immigration problem – the influx of 20,000 legal immigrants per annum is not deemed to be a problem – is the arrival of unprecedented numbers of asylum seekers, a term which is also a misnomer. The Government's response appears to be that these people should be spread throughout the country. I refer here to a decision announced either yesterday or earlier this morning. I would like the Government to outline what is meant by this response. The tardiness of this decision answers, in some ways, the question I put to the Taoiseach yesterday. How can he suggest that there is some form of coherent policy in place when the Government is only now recognising the idea that it is not in the interests of both asylum seekers and local communities to be heaped upon each other as they are at present, principally in my constituency and that of the Taoiseach?

The reality is that a considerable section of these asylum seekers are, in effect, economic migrants, driven from their countries by the kind of economic circumstances that drove tens of thousands of Irish people abroad until very recently. Until the summer we prevented these people from working when they arrived in Ireland and it is too early to judge the merits of that policy change, despite what is being fed to some newspapers by Government sources. There is one point worth making in this regard, namely, that only 11 out of 36 applications have been granted thus far. Whatever was responsible for the upturn in the numbers of asylum seekers, the "pull factor" continuously referred to by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, even after the decision was made, would not appear to be it. I would also be interested in the Minister's views as to why the number of applications is so low and what efforts he has made to encourage applications to work from asylum seekers in the country for over six months.

Principally, however, the Government is faced with a choice. Under international law it is obliged to offer due process to any asylum seeker who makes an application within this jurisdiction; it is entitled to expect other countries to live up to their obligations under the Dublin Convention; it is entitled to deport people, a right which I readily recognise; it is entitled to process applications for asylum speedily and efficiently; and it is certainly entitled to pursue vigorously the callous and uncaring people who traffic in the human misery that is economic migration. However, we must make a decision regarding whether we are going to tolerate any economic immigration at all, with the exception of those who are educated, skilled and, I must say it, white. If we are, we should adopt a proactive approach. Their numbers should be decided upon, they should be assisted to learn English, if necessary, and they should be assisted in finding work, something which, in the current climate, should not prove difficult.

I suggest that this would constitute an immigration policy, not the ad hoc madness that amounts to one at present. It is not good enough for us to attend European summits and discuss this problem in a European context when we have not even started to address it at home. The reality is probably that a well defined and widely known policy in this area might help resolve some of the difficult ethical questions that surround this issue. However, the appointment of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to chair the interdepartmental committee on immigration, asylum and related issues does not augur well, given the policy fiasco over which he has presided since taking office.

The Tampere summit was the first attended by the new Commission President, Mr. Prodi, in his official capacity. In preparation for the summit and partially in recognition of the speed at which discussions on enlargement were proceeding, Mr. Prodi had asked those who have become known as the "three wise men" to prepare a report on the implications for the European Union arising from the impending enlargement. Existing treaty provisions dictate that reform of the existing system – effectively established, albeit with some modifications, by the foundation of the original European Community – would not take place until after the next enlargement, with limited reform in the meantime. However, because the first stage of enlargement will probably bring Union membership over the 20 mark, the President seems intent on merging the two staged reform processes envisaged at Amsterdam into one. As the report puts it "an effort at comprehensive reform should be undertaken right now." That report was published after the summit broke up, but comments made in expectation of it figured prominently in the coverage in the aftermath of the summit. As I understand it, it is being prepared as a primer document for the next intergovernmental conference.

It is far too early to be definitive about the report, although some early comments are possible. I welcome, for example, that no attempt is being made to divest each individual member state of a Commissioner. That is a battle successive Governments have fought on behalf of the Republic and their efforts appear to have been successful. The report is correct to point out that the Commission should not and must not amount to an amalgamation of national interests. No state should be satisfied with exclusion from the collective involvement with the body charged with initiating proposals within the Union. Some concern would have to be expressed in the section on the Commission to the significance being attached to the power of the president. As the Commission crisis of earlier this year would seem to indicate, it is particularly important to increase the powers of the Parliament vis-à-vis the Commission and the president himself. As the report points out, there is less to be feared from the extension of qualified majority voting at the Council. The report correctly points out that since the introduction of QMV countries have attempted to avoid it by arriving at consensual decisions. Rather than fracturing the Council, where it applies it seems to have had the opposite effect. It must, however, be repeated that a strong and powerful Commission is very much in the interest of the smaller member states, including Ireland. Increasingly however, that Commission with its additional powers must be made more democratically accountable to the European Parliament.

The report contains significant sections on the reorganisation of the treaty text, making the case, as I understand it, for the division of the existing treaty text into two separate sections: a core text and a current policy text. I am aware that this section has already been subject to queries in other places and I would welcome the Minister's observations on it. However, it poses obvious logistical difficulties for Ireland in areas which, under our constitutional amendment on Amsterdam, are required to be referred back to this House. This is a difficult and complex question and I do not expect the Minister to respond to it this afternoon but, given the debate we have had on other matters, some attention needs to be given to it by the relevant Departments.

The primary purpose of the report is to address issues of institutional reform but one policy area, defence, is picked out for treatment. The issues of security and defence have figured prominently on Council agenda since the Kosovo crisis. The Cologne summit was taken up with the appointment of the so-called "Mr. Common Foreign and Security Policy" position. The report states that the issue of defence cannot be ignored in the forthcoming intergovernmental conference although the president's scheduling of the next Intergovernmental Conference may prove to be optimistic.

One of our national newspapers carried a report citing the Taoiseach as stating that he will have no truck with proposals to move towards a mutual defence arrangement. I am sure people who felt reassured by the Taoiseach's former remarks about the Partnership for Peace view these reassurances in a new light. However, a proposal to incorporate immediately the functions of the Western European Union into the European Union itself is a case of putting the cart before the horse. Mutual defence is not an immediate problem for the European Union, punching its political weight in security crises and bringing its unique experience to bear on real conflict resolution, both long-term and short-term, is an immediate problem. I have stated my preference that the European Union, not NATO, act as whatever regional force is necessary to keep an enforced peace, particularly on this continent. I would prefer to see the European Union rather than some of its individual component states sit at the United Nations Security Council. In the reform of the Security Council we should look at the possibility of enlarging the Security Council and replacing the European individual members, that is France and Britain, with the European Union itself. I have no illusions about how difficult that proposal might be, particularly for the two countries which would have to vacate their seats, but that is the direction in which we should be travelling. This issue will not go away and it should be looked at very carefully.

The Tampere summit was a workmanlike summit which will not live long in memory. However, the Union has critical issues to resolve and I am sure progress was made last weekend. For Ireland, the critical problem remains of how we are to retain and even expand our influence as a small member state in an enlarged Union. To do so will require a proactive approach, sadly yet to be seen, from the Government.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Mr. Fahey)

As the Taoiseach indicated in his statement, Tampere was the first occasion on which a special meeting of the European Council was convened for the purpose of considering developments in the field of justice and home affairs.

Mr. J. Bruton

Will the Minister of State respond to the questions raised in the debate or will he merely read a script?

Mr. Fahey

I will respond by saying that the Council of Europe will be an observer and other bodies such as trade unions, employers and other groups will also be consulted. The charter will be a politically binding statement to begin with but, ultimately, it may form the basis for treaty amendments. The rights as set down in the treaty would then be legally exercisable by the Union's citizens. No timescale or decision on treaty incor poration has been made. The annex to the conclusions sets out who will be observers and who will be consulted on the charter. As this could, in time, become part of our law it was felt necessary to have a group comprised only of European Union members. Given that this is such an important document of fundamental rights aiming at the highest level of fundamental rights, it is important that the body comprise the European Union only and that countries outside the Union should not be involved, other than as observers. That was the thinking behind the setting up of the body and, based on my limited experience of attending Ministers' meetings when the Minister for Foreign Affairs was involved in the Northern Ireland talks, I agree that the organisation should comprise only European Union countries.

The wide-ranging conclusions adopted by the European Council in the fields of immigration and asylum, the fight against organised crime and the improvement of access to justice for individuals and commercial concerns right across the Community indicates the Unions's determination to come to grips with the increasingly global nature of the problems facing all our societies. The European Council fully recognised that responding effectively to these challenges required an integrated approach which must include close co-operation with the wider international community.

The decision to convene the European Council and the significant conclusions adopted at Tampere indicate a shared determination to make a reality of the commitment in the Treaty of Amsterdam to create an area of freedom, security and justice within the European Union. The extensive programme of work commissioned by heads of state and Governments and the decision to establish a score card mechanism to monitor implementation are indicative of the unity of purpose among member states and of their determination to ensure that commitments made are translated into practical reality for all our citizens.

I propose to draw attention to certain aspects of the conclusions at Tampere which will have a particular bearing on the conduct of the Union's relations with third countries, in particular the commitment to work in tandem with developing countries in tackling the root causes of these problems. I will also comment on a number of foreign policy issues which were discussed at Tampere, particularly the military coup in Pakistan and the situation with regard to CTBT. Before doing so, I wish to say something with regard to the charter of fundamental rights.

The European Union, as reaffirmed in the Tampere conclusions, is "rooted in a shared commitment to freedom based on human rights, democratic institutions and the rule of law". While determined to impose their effectiveness in tackling, on a Union-wide basis, the serious challenges posed by trans-frontier crime, partners were resolved to do so in a manner consistent with their commitment to respect for human rights and freedoms. They wished to ensure that the European Council would not, as some had feared, be repressive in tone but rather to create an environment consistent with the basic values to which the Union is committed. The comments in the aftermath of the meeting by non-governmental organizations active in the human rights area are encouraging in this regard.

An indication of the priority which the Union attaches to ensuring a balanced approach was the agreement reached in relation to the body established to prepare an EU charter of fundamental rights.

The European Council, meeting in Cologne last June, decided to establish a charter of fundamental rights which would bring together, in one comprehensive document, all the fundamental rights applicable at Union level in order to make these rights more visible to citizens of the Union. The Cologne Council directed Finland, as the incoming Presidency, to establish the conditions for implementation of this decision in time for the Tampere Summit.

Mr. J. Bruton

Is this a statement of existing rights as set out in the Treaty which are being brought together into a user-friendly document or will new rights be created?

Mr. Fahey

The current situation will be examined. Topics are under discussion whereby other more fundamental rights will be taken into account also. Therefore, both options will be considered in drafting the document.

This paper was approved by the European Council in Tampere and all parties were encouraged to ensure that the substantive work of drafting the Charter commenced as quickly as possible. The body will be composed of representatives of the Heads of State or Government and the President of the Commission, as well as 16 members of the European Parliament and 30 members of national parliaments – two from each member state. A decision on the Taoiseach's representative on the body is being finalised and will be made known in the near future.

With regard to representatives from the Oireachtas, the offices of the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach were informed of this process in August, as were the Oireachtas Joint Committees on Foreign Affairs and on European Affairs. Letters will issue from the Department of Foreign Affairs, formally inviting the Oireachtas to nominate two representatives for the body.

Mr. Quinn

Given that, in effect, three parties are represented in the House, could the Oireachtas nominee represent the two Opposition parties and the Taoiseach's nominee represent the Government parties?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not an appropriate question at this stage.

Mr. J. Bruton

It is a very good question.

Mr. Fahey

It is a good question which a lowly Minister of State will not attempt to answer.

Mr. Quinn

The question is on the record.

Mr. Fahey

The first meeting of the body is likely to take place in December and a draft charter is expected to be prepared in time for the European Council in December 2000. It is envisaged that the charter will take the form of a politically binding declaration. In preparing such a charter, it is important to have broad consultation and we, therefore, very much welcome the inclusive process agreed at Tampere.

The Court of Justice of the European Communities will be invited to nominate observers, as will the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights. The views of a number of EU bodies, such as the Committee of the Regions and the Ombudsman will be sought. Furthermore, representatives of social groups and experts may be invited to present their views during the drafting stage. Transparency will be an important feature of the drafting exercise and hearings held by the body and documents submitted during its work will, in principle, be accessible to the public.

The EU and its member states have embarked on this exercise in order to provide greater transparency in the area of fundamental rights. It is in keeping with other endeavours of the Union in the field of human rights – for example, the entry into force on 1 May 1999 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which reinforced the position of human rights within the Union and enhanced its potential to counteract discrimination based on age, disability, ethnic origin, gender, race, religion or sexual orientation.

It is a timely project which is also very much in step with the Government's efforts to put in place a new human rights structure in this country – for example, the establishment of the Human Rights Commission and the enactment of employment equality and equal status legislation. Our representative will, therefore, take an active part in drafting the Charter, together with the nominees of the Oireachtas. On behalf of the Government, I thank the Finnish Presidency for its preparation of this paper and for the work it has put into it.

The European Council recognises that its responsibilities are not limited to citizens only, but extend to ensuring appropriate arrangements are in place to deal with those drawn to the Union from outside its borders. For this reason the European Council was at pains to emphasise that it remains fully committed to meeting its obligations under the Geneva Refugee Conventions and other relevant international instruments. The need to assist the full integration of those third country nationals who are lawfully resident in the Union was also highlighted.

In reaffirming the rights of legal residents, the European Council also signalled its determination to take action against those who traffic in human beings and seek financial gain from the promotion of illegal inflows, often with cynical disregard for the welfare of the individuals involved. The House has heard previously of the commitment to work towards a Common European Asylum System, and the measures which this will involve. The European Council confirmed that a comprehensive response by the Union to the issue of migration flows must be built on a close partnership with the countries of origin.

To this end the European Council welcomed the report of the High Level Working Group on Asylum and Immigration. The working group was established last December with a mandate to consider all aspects of the migration problem in selected countries of origin. It undertook a detailed examination of the political, economic and human rights factors relevant to the situation in the countries concerned, and sought to ensure that the root causes of migration, including poverty and underdevelopment, were identified.

On the basis of its findings the working group prepared action plans detailing a comprehensive programme of measures across the full range of Union and member state competences, aimed at addressing the underlying causes of these migration flows. The countries covered by the action plans – Afghanistan, Albania, Iraq, Morocco, Somalia and Sri Lanka – include some of the most significant countries of origin for migration to the EU and the plans will be of considerable assistance in ensuring an effective and comprehensive response by the Union in the period ahead.

Mr. J. Bruton

Did the Council take any decisions or provide money from the EU budget to support the action plans?

Mr. Fahey

There was a wide ranging discussion on the issue of money and it was agreed, in principle, that a fund would be available but the detail of the fund, and how it would be executed was not finalised. There was agreement that money would be made available from existing resources.

Mr. J. Bruton

Does that mean that other aspects of the EU's work vis-à-vis third world countries will be cut back to provide the resources for the action plans for the countries from which the immigrants are travelling or will new money be provided for this type of activity from areas of the EU budget not concerned with third world countries?

Mr. Fahey

The issue of extra financial contributions by various countries was raised by the Commission President who indicated that extra money was not required. He will be able work from within the existing budget.

In endorsing the high level working group's report, and the cross pillar approach which informed its work, the Council decided that the working group should be asked to remain in existence, both to monitor implementation of the action plans already prepared, and extend the list of countries examined to date. As an indication of the priority given to this issue, the Council and the Commission were invited to report on the implementation of the action plans at the December 2000 meeting of the European Council under the French Presidency.

The value of the integrated cross pillar approach followed by the High Level Working Group on Asylum and Migration extends to all aspects of the Union's work in the field of justice and home affairs. Recognising this, the European Council agreed that all the competences and instances at the disposal of the Union, particularly in the field of external relations, should be used in developing a comprehensive response to the many challenges facing the Union in creating an area of freedom, justice and security.

In practical terms this means that issues such as organised crime, money laundering, drug trafficking, as well as the growing problem of trafficking in persons, will form part of the Union's dialogue with relevant third countries. The dialogue will be undertaken on the basis of partnership with the countries concerned and with a recognition that solutions to problems of migration outflows can only be based on a full understanding of the underlying situation in the countries concerned. The Union will make full use of the range of instruments which the Treaty of Amsterdam provides in the external relations area, including the use of common strategies, and Community agreements.

At the Friday evening dinner, foreign ministers discussed a number of current international issues. These included the decision of the United States Senate on the comprehensive test ban treaty and the situation in Pakistan. A declaration was issued to indicate the dismay of Ministers over the coup in that country. The foreign ministers welcomed the new General Secretary of the Council, Javier Solana, as High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy. I am confident Mr. Solana's stature will allow him to make a key contribution to the strengthening of the common foreign and security policy in line with the terms of the Treaty of Amsterdam and he will co-operate with the presidency to ensure the EU's conduct on foreign policy is as efficient and effective as possible, bearing in mind the common interests of the Union.

Mr. Quinn

Out of courtesy, I express my appreciation, and I am sure that of Deputy Bruton, for the courtesy with which the Minister of State took our interventions which probably caused him to be short of time. He was most helpful.

Mr. J. Bruton

I agree, the Minister of State answered all questions fully and directly.

Mr. Quinn

If only his senior Ministers would follow suit.