Council document 14848/02 is a proposal for a Council directive on mutual assistance in transit during expulsion by air transport. I am sure somebody will be able to explain that. I welcome Mr. Noel Dowling, principal officer from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who will provide the committee with a briefing, already circulated to members, on the proposed measure. I ask Mr. Dowling to introduce his colleagues.
Scrutiny of EU Proposals.
Mr. Noel Dowling
Thank you, Chairman, for inviting us here today. I will introduce my colleagues. Margaret O'Connor, principal officer, Padraig Devine, assistant principal, Peter Jones, assistant principal and Elaine Cassidy, assistant principal, all in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
Thank you all for coming here this afternoon. Mr. Dowling will provide a short briefing, the text of which has been circulated to members. The briefing will be followed by a question and answer session. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I remind all of those appearing before the committee that although members enjoy absolute privilege, that same privilege does not apply to them.
Mr. Dowling
I am here to brief the committee on the initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany with a view to adopting a Council directive on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air, which I hope to explain as we go along. I will outline the origin of this proposal, what it entails, the current state of negotiations, what will be involved if agreement is reached on the proposal, and where it fits into overall EU policy development in this area. My colleagues and I will then be glad to respond to any questions arising from the briefing with the proviso that we, as civil servants, in accordance with the Committees of the Houses (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997, cannot in this forum question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Minister or of the Government or on the merits of the objectives of such a policy.
I understand members of the committee have been provided with a copy of the Council document 14848/02 dated 10 December 2002. Before outlining the salient aspects of the proposal, it is perhaps interesting to note that this is an initiative from one particular member state, Germany, and not from the European Commission. Such proposals, nonetheless, are processed in the same way and have the same validity as those which have been initiated by the Commission. The right of individual states to initiate such proposals in the asylum and immigration area will end in May 2004.
This proposal, if adopted, will enable participating states to provide each other with a range of assisting measures in cases of transit for the purposes of expelling by air transport illegally resident third country nationals who are the subject of expulsion orders in member states. The proposal states that this assistance will include all measures necessary from landing and the opening of the aircraft doors until it is ensured that the third country national has left the transit airport of the requested member state.
Such measures will include meeting the third country national at the airport and escorting them within the confines of the transit airport, in particular to their connecting flight; placing the person, where necessary, in a detention room; using legitimate force where an attempt to resist the transit takes place; providing assistance and, where necessary, emergency medical care to the deportee and their escort; holding and forwarding travel documents, particularly in the case of unescorted removals; and keeping the requesting state informed as to when the deportee has departed from the territory of the European Union. They are the principal measures envisaged in this proposed Council directive. Annexed to the proposal are standard forms which are to be used by the member state requesting assistance under the proposed directive.
A number of other provisions in the proposal should also be noted. An application for transit shall, in principle, not be made if the measure for removal requires a change of airport on the territory of a member state. An application for transit shall not be made or may be refused if, in the state of destination or another transit state, the third country national faces a threat of inhumane or humiliating treatment, torture or the death penalty or where life or liberty would be at risk by reason of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political conviction.
This initiative was formally presented in writing by Germany to the Council on 10 December 2002. It has as its legal basis Article 63.3.B of the treaty establishing the European Community. This deals with the obligation of the Council to adopt measures in the area of illegal immigration and illegal residents, including repatriation of illegal residents.
This initiative is what is known as a Title IV proposal under the treaty establishing the European Community. This means that it does not automatically apply to Ireland or, for that matter, to the United Kingdom. Under Article 3 of the Fourth Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam, to which the UK is also a party, we have three months from the date of a proposal or initiative when presented to the Council, that is to say, three months from 10 December 2002 in this case, to notify the President of the Council in writing of our wish to take part in the adoption and application of any such proposed measure. It is important to note that approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas is required before such a notification can be made. Members of this House will be familiar with this process in the exercise of previous opt-ins.
For reasons which I will explain later, the three months notification deadline could not be met in this case. However, we may also accept a measure at any time after it has been adopted under Article 4 of the Fourth Protocol and this, too, would require the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas before such a notification is made.
As already mentioned, this proposal has as its legal basis Article 63.3.B of the treaty establishing the European Community. It is also considered to be building upon the Schengen acquis. In essence, the Schengen system involves the abolition of border controls between participating states together with a series of measures designed to strengthen external borders and address participants’ security concerns. All EU member states, with the exception of Ireland and the UK, are full participants in the system, as are Iceland and Norway.
The Schengen system forms an acquis in an annex to the Treaty of the European Union and to the treaty establishing the European Community. A Council decision of 28 February 2002 approved Ireland’s application to participate in certain aspects of the Schengen acquis, and these relate to police co-operation, judicial co-operation, certain immigration measures, the Schengen information system and data protection. The complicating factor in this proposal is that the initiative is considered to build on an aspect of the Schengen acquis, to which Ireland has not opted in, by the Council decision. The relationship between Ireland’s partial participation in the Schengen acquis and our right, and that of the United Kingdom, to opt into Title IV measures raises complex legal issues. The Attorney General’s advice has been sought and there have been detailed discussions with the Council’s legal service about our participation in this measure. The matter was not resolved by the deadline of 10 March 2003 for the Title IV opt in and discussions are continuing to take place with a range of parties. The committee I am sure will appreciate that because of this I cannot comment further on this complex legal issue. As indicated, however, Ireland may opt in to this measure at any time after its adoption by the Council and Ireland continues to take part in the discussion of this measure in the migration and expulsion working group in Brussels.
It would be improper to anticipate the views of the Government and of the Oireachtas on the measures contained in this proposal. That said, it might be noted that the number of persons, the majority of whom are failed asylum seekers, being deported from Ireland is steadily increasing as shown by these figures. In 1999 there were six persons deported; in 2000, 187; in 2001, 365; in 2002, 521 and so far this year 143 have been deported. It is important to bear in mind that most of these removals were to countries with which Ireland has no direct air links thus necessitating transiting through other European airports in order to make connecting flights to the countries of destination. Conversely, Ireland, as a geographically peripheral country with limited transport links, would be used only in certain circumstances by other member states.
It is important that these directives and proposals be seen in a broader EU context. Following from the establishment in the Treaty of Amsterdam of Community competence in the areas of migration and asylum the heads of State and Government at the European Council in Tampere in 1999 called for the development of a common EU policy on these issues. The Council agreed to work towards the creation of a common EU asylum system on the basis of the full and inclusive application of the Geneva Convention which essentially involves setting minimum standards by way of EU legislation in such areas as common asylum determination procedures, the definition of a refugee and the reception of asylum seekers. The conclusions of the Tampere Council also agreed that the separate but closely related issues of asylum and migration call for the development of a common EU migration policy and set out the elements which it should include, namely partnership with countries of origin, fair treatment of third country nationals and management of migration flows. Working towards the creation of such a common asylum and immigration system at EU level are key priorities of the Union at the present time with ongoing work on a whole range of initiatives. Ireland has been fully supportive of the concept of a single European asylum and migration policy based on the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam and its related protocols. As my Minister, Deputy Michael McDowell, said in his address to the McGill Summer School in July 2002:
Our approach to the key elements of such a system and to any proposals tabled by the Commission takes account of our desire to maintain the common travel area with the United Kingdom and also of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality which are key elements of the treaty, whether something can be done better on an EU basis or nationally.
The European Council at Laeken in 2001 requested the Council to develop an action plan on the basis of the Commission's communication on illegal immigration of November 2001. Consequently, the Council adopted on 28 February 2002 a comprehensive plan to combat illegal immigration and trafficking of human beings in the European Union. In its communication on illegal immigration the Commission had announced the production of a Green Paper on return policy on illegal immigrants. The final Green Paper produced on 10 April 2002 built on the elements of the Council's action plan and explores various issues relating to the return of third country nationals. Building on this work a comprehensive returns action programme on illegal residents was drawn up under the Danish presidency and approved by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 18 November 2002. This proposed Council directive is a component part of that action programme.
Continuing with the broad EU policy it is important to note that the European Council in Seville highlighted the determination of EU states to speed up the implementation of all aspects of the programme adopted in Tampere for the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice in the European Union. In particular the Council highlighted the need to develop a European Union common policy on asylum and immigration. The Seville Council stressed that measures taken in the short and medium term for the joint management of migration flows must strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, an integration policy for lawfully resident immigrants and an asylum policy complying with international conventions, principally the 1951 Geneva Convention, and on the other hand, resolute action to combat illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings.
For the future the Council considers that action in this area should be based on the following key principles: the legitimate aspiration to a better life has to be reconcilable with the reception capacity of the Union and its member states, and immigration must pass through the legal channels provided for it. The integration of immigrants lawfully present in the Union entails both rights and obligations in relation to the fundamental rights recognised within the Union. Combating racism and xenophobia is of essential importance here too. Second, in accordance with the 1951 Geneva Convention it is important to afford refugees swift effective protection while making arrangements to prevent abuse of the system and ensuring that those whose asylum applications have been rejected are returned to their countries of origin more quickly. Ireland fully supports those principles.
I hope what I have said gives you a broad understanding of this measure and the context in which it is being discussed and we will be glad to take any questions the committee may have in relation to what I have said.
I will be brief. I thank Mr. Dowling and his staff for coming here. Can Mr. Dowling tell me the logistics of how somebody is deported? What are the mechanics, for example, of deporting somebody to Nigeria, given that we do not have direct travel links with Nigeria?
Perhaps Mr. Dowling could deal with that first.
Mr. Dowling
That is dealt with in the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, and perhaps my colleague, Padraig Devine, will give a summary of the position.
Can he just tell me how it works, without the guidelines and all that?
Mr. Padraig Devine
The Garda National Immigration Bureau has a responsibility for removing persons who are subject to deportation orders. The Minister makes a decision to deport and the Department serves the deportation order on the person, usually by registered post. The person is requested to turn up at the Garda station to complete arrangements for his or her removal and when those arrangements have been made the gardaí proceed with their removal. It is usual for two members of the Garda to escort each person who is being removed. Removal is by air because of our island status. Over the past three years the four main nationalities we have removed are Nigerians, Rumanians, Czechs and Poles, and because we do not have direct air links with most of those countries, with the exception of the Czech Republic, that involves transiting through other European hub airports, principally Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Paris, London and Prague. At present the escorts do not have a sovereign right in those countries when they arrive. They have basic citizen rights. This directive is intended to give them certain powers in emergency situations and to enable them to call on the assistance of the local police and immigration services if required. There are sustenance and detention facilities that can be provided as well.
What happens in Amsterdam at present when they are going through?
Mr. Devine
In the majority of removals there is no problem. They are just ordinary transient passengers like you or I going to Moscow through Amsterdam. We get off the Aer Lingus flight, we go to the departure area for the flight to Moscow and we board. In a minority of cases there may be trouble. The deportee may cause some disruption. It is in those situations that the gardaí are placed in an onerous position because they do not have the powers of the local police but are still responsible for completing the removal. In such circumstances they depend on the goodwill of the local police force and whatever contacts they have with the Amsterdam police. This measure will now require the Dutch authorities to provide us with a range of assistance measures if they are required.
What will happen is that escorts will still be provided with deportees and the gardaí will then be met by the local police at the other side if they need assistance. Are those people normally handcuffed when they are deported?
Mr. Devine
That is an operational matter for the Garda. I believe that most deportees would not be handcuffed.
In the presentation it was mentioned that if there is a threat to the deportee in the country they go through or at their final destination, the deportation may not happen. Is that not part of the asylum process here, to determine whether persons are likely to be persecuted or tortured if they are returned to their own country? How would this directive work if the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform turned down an asylum application, believing such a threat did not exist, but another country decided it did?
Is there not an agreement in place already that asylum seekers must be returned to the country in which they first landed in the EU? Is that fully in place? All the refugees who arrive here have come through another EU country. How do they get this far if the requirement is that they must make their case in the first EU country in which they arrive? Is it not part of the protocol that if they arrive in Dublin having flown in from Amsterdam or London, they are returned there and make their case?
I know Mr. Dowling said he would not answer questions that were likely to impinge on policy, but are we likely to participate in this? I understand it is subject to Government decision and ratification by the Dáil, but the way things are moving now, is it likely we are going to sign this agreement?
Mr. Dowling
I am afraid Deputy Paul McGrath has anticipated my reply. We are not in a position to make any comment as to the likely adoption of this proposal.
We are going down the road and coming back up it again.
Mr. Dowling
That is a matter in the first instance for the Government and then the Oireachtas. As an Oireachtas Member, the Deputy will have a role to play in this too.
Mr. Dowling plays rugby, obviously.
Mr. Devine
The Dublin Convention provides that persons are required to claim asylum in the first safe country in which they arrive within the EU. This does not always happen. Where it does happen and the persons can be traced back to that country, assuming they have left a record in that country through asylum applications or visas issued, the country is required to take them back under the Dublin Convention. Most of our deportees are not Dublin Convention cases. Approximately 10% of our deportations are returns to EU countries. In the majority of cases, no administrative traces can be found of the persons in other EU countries. It is up to Ireland to consider their asylum applications and if they are refused and the decision is taken to deport the persons concerned, it is the responsibility of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law reform to remove them to their country of origin.
I welcome the delegation from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. This is certainly an interesting issue. Considering that this proposal did not come through the normal procedure but through one country, what reasons did the Federal Republic of Germany give for presenting it? What reasons were given for believing it would become an EU directive and would be embraced by other member states?
Given that we have passed the three month deadline and have reason for not having made a decision on the matter, what is the position with regard to other EU countries that are a party to Schengen? Have they embraced these proposals?
In light of deportations that are taking place, the Supreme Court decision regarding residency and the fact that this committee decided to invite representatives of organisations which could be dealing with large-scale deportations, the Immigration Act 1999 will have to be amended. Should these decisions not be taken subsequent to the other events taking place rather than being considered at this point. What is the timescale proposed?
The term "legitimate force" is used. Legitimate force may have a different meaning in the Garda Síochána which is an unarmed police force compared to the police forces in Germany and other EU countries. Legitimate force means legitimate in the context of their legislation. Is that legitimate in the context of our legislation? What type of precautions would be put in place for prisoners in transit within the parameters of what we would regard as an unarmed police force? Overall, it would be premature to make determination on this matter at this time.
I ask the officials to respond to those areas to which they are entitled to respond.
Mr. Dowling
Deputy Costello raised the Supreme Court decision on 23 January 2003 in what is known as the L&O case. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, has publicly stated it will be the subject of Government decision and he is still considering the effect of the decision, considering the backlog of cases. It would be improper of me to comment in advance of a ministerial and Government decision on the matter.
Deputy Costello asked about Schengen and our right to opt in under Title IV. Essentially the only question of opting in or embracing the measure as the Deputy described it arises for the UK and Ireland, because we are the people to whom Title IV measures do not automatically apply. As Mr. Dowling said in his outline, the question of the relationship between Title IV and Schengen and Ireland's participation in Schengen is very knotty. The only option available is to us, and after that one gets into extremely complex legal issues, into which I would prefer not to delve. I am not sure we would get much further if I did so. Does that help to answer the Deputy's question?
Do we know where we stand in relation to decisions on the acquis? What timescale are we talking about?
I will take the two issues separately. One option is to opt into measures in Title IV, which we already have by virtue of the Amsterdam treaty, and the Deputy will have seen the exercise of those options. However, there is an overlap between what we have agreed to participate in Schengen and our right to opt in under Title IV measures. It is this kind of conflux which has been the subject of legal discussions for the past several weeks.
Where are we in relation to that? Is that something that could go on indefinitely?
Will there be a resolution?
We have already missed the three month deadline.
We have missed the right to opt in within the three months and the right we now have is to opt in once the measure has been adopted. I do not know whether I can comment as to when we expect the legal issue to be resolved. We are making some progress.
The legal issues may never be resolved and we may never opt in one way or another.
I would not speculate on that.
We have a hypothetical set of proposals before us, in terms of implementation or opting into them or the termination of the legal complexities on the opt-in date.
What is not in dispute is that we have a right under Title IV to opt in to the Title IV measure once it is adopted. It is the territory between that and its Schengen relations which is causing problems.
As Mr. Dowling said in his opening remarks, the Attorney General has been asked for his comments, and clarification has not yet come from his office. We cannot look into the mind of the Attorney General.
Mr. Devine
I would like to address Deputy Costello's first question on why Germany proposed this. This proposal has been on the go for some time in unofficial discussions. I think it may date back to the German EU presidencies of some years ago. The present proposal simply regulates existing practice, and with Germany having its hub airport in Frankfurt, where there is a lot of transit traffic, I can see an advantage in such a country having some form of regulation in place to protect itself and the people travelling through it as well as the countries using it as a transit point. It brings certainty to a situation which currently lacks it.
A number of points I had in mind have been dealt with. Notwithstanding the legal difficulties referred to, the proposed directive makes eminent good sense, not least to an island nation facing the type of challenges we do in the areas of asylum and immigration. I have a couple of very brief questions. One of the measures envisaged involves the placing of a person in detention at the airport of transit. Could the witnesses tell us the likely scenarios that might arise in the event of significant travel delays? Are there issues in terms of how long a person can be held in detention? Is it the practice to deport families together or are people deported individually? Is the person being deported always accompanied and, if so, by whom? Are there any situations in which the country of origin might refuse to accept the person being deported? Has that happened or could it happen? Finally, in relation to the growth in numbers of people being deported, there were nearly 600 last year - what are the anticipated numbers for 2003?
Mr. Dowling
My more expert colleagues can comment on some of the points raised. In relation to whether a deportee is accompanied, that is an operational matter for the Garda. I am not trying to avoid the question. I have already had discussions today with the Garda about this matter. It depends on the circumstances of each case and whether the airline is willing to allow the person on the aeroplane unaccompanied. Generally speaking, from the point of view of convenience and the dignity of the person concerned, the gardaí would prefer not to have the person escorted. If the gardaí feel the person is willing and able to be deported unescorted, that will happen.
Deputy Ó Fearghaíl asked whether a country can refuse to take a person. A person is not put on an aeroplane without prior notification to the country concerned that a deportation is taking place. The gardaí have to get travel papers from the embassy or consulate of the country concerned before the deportation takes place so that the person does not arrive unannounced at the airport, with the country refusing acceptance. There may be difficulty in getting travel papers in certain circumstances in relation to questions of identity, for example, but that is a slightly different issue.
In relation to detention in the country of transit; the key word is transit: it is not a permanent exercise. One would expect that the instances of detention would be very few. That would be a practical operational matter for the Garda, but such detention would not be expected to be long-term or to last more than an hour or two. That has also been the experience of the Garda Síochána. Perhaps Mr. Devine would be in a position to advise in relation to families.
Mr. Devine
Families and individuals are deported and in order to preserve a family unit, it is obviously better to remove a family en masse rather than leave members behind. As my colleague, Mr. Dowling, said, the air ticket is booked as if it were the Deputy or I travelling onwards through London or Amsterdam. One does not get a flight to London in order to leave London the following morning on route to Singapore or wherever. The ticketing system usually results in there being only an hour or two between getting off a flight in, say, Amsterdam and joining an onward flight to wherever. The time spent in transit is limited in the majority of cases and I imagine it is only really where the deportee would engage in disruptive behaviour that he or she would be put in detention. The removal procedures are the same for families and individuals, except that there is extra sensitivity when women and children are present. The maximum dignity is afforded to them.
Mr. Devine said an application for transit shall not be made or may be refused if in the state of destination or another transit state the third country national faces the threat of inhumane treatment or is likely to be persecuted. How could the transit country determine that if we failed to do so?
Mr. Dowling
It is important to bear in mind that there is a principle enshrined in the UN Charter, as I understand it, called refoulement, which basically states that one cannot return a person to a country where that person’s life and liberty will be unfairly at risk. It is codified in section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996. The provision states:
A person shall not be expelled from the State or returned in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where in the opinion of the Minister the life or freedom of that person would be threatened on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
That is more or less reflected in the draft directive. I would have to double check the point, but I believe it is reflected in the legislation of all EU member states, since membership is contingent on the country concerned signing up to the UN Charter.
Mr. Dowling has not understood my point. I know it is enshrined in our legislation and that the Minister must take that into account in deciding whether someone should be deported. However, after he has made the decision to deport that person, I cannot see how the transit country - it is implied in what Mr. Dowling said - could refuse to co-operate on the basis that the person might be persecuted in his or her country. What kind of information might they have? Is the entire directive not merely window dressing? If one is deporting a person to Nigeria via Amsterdam, it is highly unlikely that the local police will determine that the person would be persecuted in Nigeria when our Minister has decided that would not be the case. Why is it included if it is unlikely to be of any significance, or am I reading it incorrectly?
Mr. Devine
I will try to answer Deputy McGrath's question. Our legislation requires us to consider a person's safety right up to removal, and it is possible that new information might become available during transit. We have had to call off operations because of new information that at least placed the safety of the person being returned in doubt. We give the person the benefit of the doubt in such situations. There are many other reasons a country can refuse transit. The list is set out in the directive and my colleague, Mr. Dowling, referred to them. It is a right that countries have insisted on retaining provisions. Circumstances could change, and the person could make a secondary asylum application in transit. The country would have to investigate that and consider the safety of the person's removal to wherever he or she was going.
I welcome Mr. Dowling, Ms O'Connor and their team. What measures are in place to surmount the difficulties of the language barrier in transit? I would also like to renew the question of my colleague, Deputy Ó Fearghaíl. What are the average numbers deported each year and the estimates for the cost to the departmental budget of carrying out that?
I would like to return to the question I asked concerning legitimate force, which I do not think was answered. What type of escort are we talking about? Is it an armed escort, does it involve the police or a member of an armed force from another country coming into our jurisdiction? Under the Defence Act 1954 no one carrying arms or wearing a uniform as part of an army is allowed into the jurisdiction without the support of the Oireachtas.
Deputy McGrath made a point about deportation. Cases have arisen in this jurisdiction in which strong arguments were made that people would have been subject to persecution if they returned to their own countries, for example, Elizabeth Onasanwo is going before the courts arguing that she could be subjected to considerable persecution in Nigeria if she were returned there. If she lost that case in the Irish courts, it would also be presented to the European Parliament, meaning that other countries would be aware of it. Could another jurisdiction, for example, the Federal Republic of Germany, if transit were through Hamburg, decide under article 3(3) that Ms Onasanwo's life or liberty would be placed at risk in the country of origin and decide not to participate at all or that, during transit, she would be allowed to apply separately for asylum there?
If the asylum seeker re-applied in Germany, she would have left Ireland anyway.
Would that be possible for someone in transit through our country, and would we seek information about the basis on which the deportations were taking place? All those people being deported could make requests for asylum on the basis that, if they returned home through the transit port of Shannon, they would be subject to some form of inhuman treatment such as torture or persecution.
Like the Cubans and the Basques.
Like the Cubans and the Basques who were sent back on the next plane to Cuba. Will there be a proactive role of that nature with the opportunity for our authorities to be informed about a possibility of that nature which might arise?
Could the person in transit say he or she was seeking asylum?
Could that happen despite being with an armed escort or whatever? If I said I were seeking asylum, what would be the Irish reaction?
Mr. Devine
I will try to respond to some of those points. I hope Deputy Hoctor will not mind if I start with Deputy Costello, whose first question concerned the use of legitimate force. The draft directive specifically prohibits the wearing of uniforms and the carrying of guns. Therefore, escorts are not allowed to be in uniform or carry guns in transit countries. The force that may be used by the local police force is subject to the national legislation of the country concerned. All the countries through which the deportees would pass are democratic European states like our own.
Deputy Hoctor asked about costs. Last year, 521 persons were deported and the cost of air travel, including the cost of the escorts as well as for the persons being removed, was approximately €1.8 million. There were additional Garda expenses, figures for which are not available to the Department.
Interpretation facilities are provided as required. In some cases during removals we would not only send escorts, but medical personnel or social workers if that were required or desired. It need not be a garda travelling with the person. An interpreter could also travel.
The other question related to the right of someone in transit to apply for asylum elsewhere.
Mr. Devine
Of course people have the right to apply for asylum in transit, and that would be determined in accordance with the national legislation of the country concerned. All European countries are signatories to the Geneva Convention, which is the basis of their asylum legislation.
Perhaps I might clarify that. Even though people are being refused asylum by the country from which they are being deported and may even have gone to court, there will still be a facility, for example, in the main transit areas in Hamburg, which can be contacted by anyone in transit. Are we going to insist on translation facilities? If people get on an aeroplane here protesting that they are genuine asylum seekers, how will they be facilitated to process their asylum applications in the transit country?
Mr. Devine
We cannot guarantee anything because it would be operated according to the rules of the directive and according to national legislation in that country. If there were a claim that would be a secondary asylum application, assuming the person had been expelled as a refused asylum seeker from Ireland. While the majority of people expelled from Ireland are refused asylum seekers there are other people being deported who have never been near the asylum process. In case of a secondary asylum application it would be in accordance with the law of the transit state. That is all I can say on that.
We have gone through it and there is a problem there which will have to be addressed at another time.
Does that mean when it is in accordance the facility will be there, and that in whatever transit outlets we use we would seek to ensure that facility is there for people to make applications if they so wish?
To the Deputy and me and the Government.
It is not part of the directive that personnel would be there and it would be a unilateral issue for each individual state.
It is according to the laws of the country.
That is different.
The Deputy and I will make those laws and decide who should be there and who should not.
It is according to the laws of the country with which one is entering into a mutual agreement. It is not fully in accordance with the laws of the country.
Arising from the figures given to us, and doing some quick sums, Mr. Devine said earlier that some people do not have escorts travelling out, some go as families and so on. If one looks at the numbers for last year, and the figure of €1.8 million, that means, for each refugee who was deported the cost for a travel ticket alone was €3,500. If some of them did not have escorts and some did, and families would have a reduced number, that seems an enormous sum of money. Were they travelling first class?
Mr. Devine
No, deportations are usually in economy class. If one divides €1.8 million by 521 that is the average cost but we are talking about deporting to as near as London, in the case of Dublin Convention removals, and to maybe as far as Tokyo, if we ever deported anybody to Japan. I do not think we have but we are talking about travelling perhaps to the other side of the world. We are talking about a range of costs but the average cost is around €3,500, which includes the cost of two escorts and the person.
The return fare from here to Australia is currently about €1,200 or €1,300. Flights to Nigeria and so on are around the same price. The average Sunbeam flight to London or Romania would not be anything near that. It seems an enormous cost. Even if three people travel on each journey the cost still averages €1,200 apiece. There are other expenses on top of that. It seems very high, which is why I mention it.
That is the basis of a good parliamentary question.
Give them more work.
I thank the delegation for attending, for briefing us and for the open way in which it answered the questions. We are very grateful for that. If there are any other issues that were raised on which you feel the committee should get more clarity, please do not hesitate to come back to us.
Mr. Devine
Something occurred to me that will help to answer Deputy McGrath's question. That figure included the cost of two charter flights, one to Algeria and one to Nigeria which would have driven up the average cost.
What type of jet was it?
Mr. Devine
I do not know what type of jet, but it was certainly more expensive because of the nature of the removals. The people concerned were involved in threatening behaviour and would not have been taken on board commercial aircraft. We were forced to remove them by charter flights. Obviously, chartering an aircraft to remove people is more expensive than travelling by ordinary commercial means. That would have driven up the average cost.
Thank you for that clarification.
Mr. Devine might extend that argument to the Government in relation to the Government jet as well.
I am sure the Government will employ Deputy Costello as a consultant on jet acquisition.
Is it agreed that the committee will formally report back to the scrutiny sub-committee and to the Houses that it has completed its detailed scrutiny of this proposal, without recommendations, pending resolution of the legal issues involved, at which point the committee may choose to scrutinise the proposal again, and in the meantime to revert to the scrutiny sub-committee on its findings? Is that convoluted enough now to get us out of it?
It will be coming back to the committee.
If the committee so desires it, yes.