If Deputy Howlin requests his colleagues to accommodate him by allowing him to listen to it, I will have no difficulty doing so.
The motion for reference to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights relates to the exercise of the option which the State has under the provisions of the Fourth Protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty to take part in the adoption and application of the proposal for a Council directive on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status. The background to the motion is broadly as follows.
The Treaty of Amsterdam came into operation on 1 May 1999. The House will be aware that annexed to that treaty was a protocol, also known as the Fourth Protocol, the effect of which is to exempt Ireland and the United Kingdom from the provisions of Title IV of that treaty which deals with visas, asylum, immigration and other policies related to the free movement of persons.
The Fourth Protocol, however, also allows either or both countries to opt into particular measures under specified terms and conditions. Article 3 of the protocol provides the State with a three month period to notify its wish to take part in the adoption and application of any proposal from the date such a proposal is presented to the Council, usually by the European Commission, or we may also accept a measure any time after it has been adopted. For a transitional period of five years, the overwhelming majority of decisions in relation to proposals tabled must be on the basis of unanimity, but under the terms of the protocol if, after a reasonable period, the proposed measure cannot be adopted with the United Kingdom or Ireland taking part, the other member states may go ahead with the decision in Council without their participation.
It is important to clarify why the matter is only now coming before the House for consideration. Although it was sent formally to the Council by the Commission at the end of October last year, the final text as communicated to the Council only became available to my Department in mid-November. Prior to considering whether the State should exercise its option under Title IV, the necessary interdepartmental consultations had to take place and Government approval had to be sought for the exercise of the option. Although copies of the proposal for a directive were laid before both Houses on 9 January 2001, due to the intervening Christmas recess, which took up almost half of the 12 week "opt in" period, it is only now, on the return of both Houses, that the necessary motion can be considered.
The consequence of the presentation of this proposal by the European Commission to Council is that if the State wishes to opt into discussions from the beginning, we have until 14 February 2001 to inform the president of the Council of our intentions. Failure to opt in at this time does not prevent us from participating in Council discussions. However, we would not be able to opt in until such time as the negotiations have been concluded and the measures adopted, and our ability to influence the outcome of the discussions would be correspondingly limited. The United Kingdom recently conveyed its decision to the Council to exercise its option in respect of the Council directive.
This initiative is the first major proposal in a series of measures aimed at creating a common European asylum system. The framework for the creation of a common system is already contained in the conclusions of the Tampere European Council of October 1999 and in Title IV of the EU Treaty which was inserted by the Treaty of Amsterdam. At Tampere, the Council agreed to work towards the creation of a common asylum system in the EU on the basis of the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention.
While this is the most significant proposal to arise from the Tampere Council agenda in the asylum area, there have also been proposals on the EURODAC fingerprinting regulation, a decision on a European refugee fund and a directive on temporary protection. In the coming months, proposals are expected on common reception standards for asylum seekers, the revision of the Dublin Convention and rules on the recognition and content of refugee status.
This is the third occasion on which I have sought the approval of both Houses for the State to exercise the option provided in the Fourth Protocol in respect of a proposal for an EU legal instrument in the area of asylum policy. The approval of both Houses has already been obtained for participation in discussions at EU level aimed at the adoption and application of a Council regulation concerning the establishment of EURODAC for the comparison of the fingerprints of applicants for asylum and certain non-nationals and a Council decision on the European refugee fund. The option has also been exercised in respect of other proposals for EU instruments mainly in the area of judicial co-operation in civil matters.
I wish to outline the main elements of this proposal for a Council directive on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status in respect of which discussions recently commenced in a Council working party in Brussels. The purpose of this proposal is to set out requisite measures for dealing with asylum applications in EU states as part of the creation of a common EU asylum system, based on the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention. The aim is to set down com mon minimum standards for dealing with asylum applications. The intention is not to require member states to apply uniform procedures or to oblige them to adopt common concepts and practices which they do not wish to apply. All standards for a fair and efficient procedure are laid down without prejudice to member states' discretionary power to prioritise cases on the basis of national policies.
The proposed directive essentially contains three different sets of provisions which relate to procedural guarantees, the decision-making process and the application of certain concepts and practices. Chapter One of the proposed directive sets out its scope, including its purpose, which is to establish minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status. It also contains the main definitions.
Chapter Two contains the basic principles and procedural guarantees for dealing with asylum applications. These procedural guarantees relate to all stages of the asylum procedure and are designed to ensure procedural fairness in the asylum process. The key basic principles and guarantees contained in the proposed directive include the right of asylum applicants to have access to the asylum procedure as soon as possible; the right of each asylum applicant to remain on the territory of the member state as long as his or her application for asylum is being considered; and a number of procedural guarantees which apply to every asylum applicant, including the right to be informed of the asylum procedure to be followed, the right to an interpreter, the right to a written decision and the right to appeal a first instance negative decision. All these and other key procedural guarantees are features of the Irish asylum system and most are enshrined in the Refugee Act, 1996.
Chapter Two also contains provisions on the processing of asylum applications from unaccompanied minors, the detention of applicants, the provision of resources and training for determining authorities, the right of access by UNHCR personnel to applicants and the protection of applicants' identities. While member states may retain their own national asylum systems, the intention of these provisions is to ensure that decision making meets certain minimum requirements in the interest of developing a comprehensive common European asylum policy.
Chapter Three contains standards for the application of an admissibility procedure, including proposals for the grounds under which an application can be deemed inadmissible. These include the safe third country principle. As I mentioned previously, each member state may decide whether to apply the admissibility concept, but if it does so, its national application would have to follow the common framework for all member states. Accordingly, if a member state applies an admissibility procedure to dismiss an application as inadmissible on the basis of the safe third country concept, it will have to abide by the com mon principles for designating a country as a safe third country as laid down in Annex I to the proposal as well as the common requirements for applying the concept in individual cases.
Chapter Four deals with substantive determination procedures and provides for a regular procedure and an accelerated procedure. While there is no obligation to apply an accelerated procedure to deal with manifestly unfounded applications, member states will have to abide by the common definitions and maximum time limits if they do so. With regard to the safe country of origin principle, which applies in some other EU states, Annex II of the proposal lays down a common approach to the designation of countries as safe following consideration of a range of information on the countries concerned.
Chapter Five deals with appeals procedures and provides for an appeal to a reviewing body such as our refugee appeals tribunal. In certain circumstances, a further appeal may lie to an appellate court.
Chapter Six contains provisions on penalties for the infringement of the national provisions adopted pursuant to the directive. The text of the proposal generally reflects many of the key elements of Ireland's domestic asylum legislation and procedures. Our procedures encompass strict safeguards to guarantee fairness and to provide for a first stage determination process and an independent appeals mechanism in the case of a negative recommendation at first stage, and applicants for asylum may also apply to the High Court for a judicial review of their case. The Refugee Act, 1996, also provides a statutory right to consult a solicitor, a right to interpretation and a right of access by the UNHCR to the asylum process.
There are also, however, some differences between Ireland's asylum procedure and that contained in the proposal, such as, time limits for making appeals and for examining asylum applications and the inclusion of a third tier appeal to the Appellate Court on both facts and points of law, all of which will be considered in detail during the negotiations at Council Working Party level. The proposal also contains concepts which are new to us, such as, the safe country of origin principle, the admissibility procedure and the provision for an appeal in certain cases not to have suspensive effect. These concepts are not obligatory and of course all member states have discretion to decide whether to adopt concepts and practices which are not currently part of the Irish asylum system.
The Government continues to be committed to meeting the State's obligations under the 1951 Geneva Convention both by identifying and protecting genuine refugees and by more quickly dealing with those asylum applications which are clearly not from genuine asylum seekers. As the House will be aware, the Government has allocated major additional resources to the asylum area, including 370 additional staff, aimed at speeding up processing times in respect of asylum applications, including appeals, and to deal with the consequential increase in the level of repatriations of people whose applications for refugee status are unsuccessful. In addition, significant additional resources have been made available to the Refugee Legal Service to ensure it can provide a comprehensive and quality legal service to asylum seekers at all stages of the asylum process.
This proposal for a Council directive on minimum standards on procedures for granting and withdrawing refugee status is likely to be the subject of lengthy and protracted debate at EU level involving as it does the marrying of various member states' asylum systems. The exercise of Ireland's discretion to opt into discussions on this proposal will initially involve only participation in those discussions at Council working party level leading, in due course, to the adoption and application of the instrument. When adopted by the Council, it is likely to be a key instrument governing the grant and withdrawal of refugee status in the member states of the EU.
The conference which adopted the Amsterdam Treaty amendments took note of a declaration by Ireland that it intended to exercise its right under Article 3 of the Protocol to take part in the adoption of measures pursuant to Title IV of the EC Treaty to the maximum extent compatible with the maintenance of the common travel area arrangements with the United Kingdom. Accordingly, the Government is of the view that it is important for Ireland to respond positively to the tabling of this proposal by exercising our option before the deadline of 14 February 2001 in order that the State is able to fully participate in and influence discussions on this significant instrument from the beginning.
