I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Dea, and his officials. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the meetings of the Council of Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs. Members have been given copies of the Official Report of the last formal interministerial Council meeting held on 8 May, draft agreements between the EU and US on extradition and mutual assistance and the provision agenda for the forthcoming meeting due to be held on 5 and 6 June.
Justice and Home Affairs Council: Ministerial Presentation.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the outcome of the recent Justice and Home Affairs Council. Before doing so, I will refer briefly to the informal meeting of justice and home affairs Ministers which took place in Veria, Greece, on 28 and 29 March. The aim of an informal meeting like this is to allow Ministers exchange ideas on topics of more general scope than would be possible within the framework of a formal Council agenda. They tend, therefore, to be more forward-looking and more wide-ranging than traditional Council meetings. It is not, however, a Council meeting proper and cannot replace the Council's normal activities. It does not, for example, adopt legislative measures. To preserve its informal character, there is no agenda and the discussions cannot give rise to the drawing up of documents prior to or after the meeting. One informal justice and home affairs Ministers' meeting is held during each Presidency.
At Veria, Ministers exchanged views on the implementation of what is known as the Seville agenda, which is the range of operational and legislative measures on immigration, asylum and border controls. The Seville European Council set a series of concrete deadlines and objectives in the form of a road map that is regularly updated. These measures include integrating management of the EU's external borders, fighting illegal immigration, co-ordinating repatriations and co-operating with migrant countries of origin. The UK presented some new ideas for further developing the asylum system in that context, including a proposal for the setting up of transit zones outside the EU's external borders to process asylum seekers.
The Veria meeting also discussed developments in justice and home affairs within the Convention on the Future of Europe. This included a presentation by Deputy John Bruton, who is a member of the Presidium of the convention and was the chair of the working group on freedom, security and justice. Ministers also considered the Commission's Green Paper on minimum procedural safeguards for defendants and suspects in criminal proceedings. Members of this committee will already be familiar with this paper because it was discussed by it on 7 May.
The Council meeting on 8 May was the first Justice and Home Affairs Council with participation, on an observer basis, by Ministers from the ten countries acceding to the EU in May 2004. Ministers and officials from these countries will now take part on a continuous basis in the work of all Councils and official level groups. This was a one-day Council and its agenda was dominated by asylum and immigration issues. Members of the committee will already have a copy of the official report of that meeting.
The first item discussed was the proposal for a Council directive on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection. This directive sets out the eligibility criteria for both refugee status and for subsidiary protection in the EU and the entitlements of those persons who qualify for that protection. Ireland has opted in to this proposal. Although some progress was made at the Council, there are still a number of outstanding issues, focusing in particular on the rights to be granted to beneficiaries of refugee and subsidiary protection status. The Council agreed to further examination of the outstanding issues at COREPER with a view to returning to it at the next Justice and Home Affairs Council on 5 and 6 June and seeking to achieve political agreement on it.
Discussion then focused on the directive concerning the status of third country nationals who are long-term residents. The purpose of the proposal is to grant certain rights to third country nationals who have been legally resident in a member state for a period of five years. These rights include approximate treatment of EU nationals in access to the labour market, social housing, education, social welfare and public health services. Neither Ireland nor the UK has exercised the right to participate in this measure. At the Justice and Home Affairs Council, broad agreement was achieved on the first section of the proposal, which deals with the conditions for acquiring long-term resident status. The Council also agreed that the directive should not cover refugees or persons who qualify for subsidiary protection, but that the Commission would submit a separate proposal for a Council directive on the acquisition of third country national status by these two categories. The outstanding issues will be discussed again at working party level with a view to reaching agreement at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 5 and 6 June.
The third item on the agenda, which I have already mentioned in connection with Veria, was the road map on the follow-up to the Seville European Council conclusions. The Greek Presidency presented an update of the road map highlighting the progress that had been achieved to date. This road map will serve as an input for drafting a report which will be presented at the Council on 5 and 6 June.
The Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner, Antonio Vitorino, gave a presentation on the results of the study carried out by the Commission on the visa information system, VIS. The proposed system involves a central database of visas issued and refused.
The Council was updated on the current state of play in the negotiations with Switzerland on its participation in the Schengen acquis. Negotiations have been under way since last September and outstanding issues include the provisions of the Schengen acquis on judicial co-operation on fiscal offences. The Council asked COREPER to provide a co-ordinated approach to outstanding issues.
The Council also reviewed progress on the conclusion of the agreements between the EU and the United States on extradition and mutual legal assistance. The committee will be aware from previous discussions that those negotiations were undertaken in the post 11 September period. Following the events of 11 September, special meetings of the European Council and the JHA Council were held. These called for measures designed to improve co-operation with the US. It is proposed that the new agreements will build on rather than replace existing bilateral agreements. Ireland's bilateral agreement with the US on extradition dates from 1983 and there is a bilateral agreement on mutual legal assistance.
The agreements provide for improved channels of communication, simplified transmission arrangements, revised arrangements for authentication of documents, establishment of joint investigation teams and arrangements for tracing bank accounts. Overall, they are intended to streamline and update current arrangements. The agreements are based on commitments to respect fundamental rights and constitutional principles. They contain guarantees in relation to the death penalty. While guarantees may be sought that not only will it not be carried out - this is the current position - the US has agreed that it will not be imposed where possible. I have recently arranged for copies of the agreements to be provided for this committee.
The Presidency plans to seek agreement at the next Council on 5-6 June for the signing of the agreements at the EU-US summit in Washington later in June. All member states and the US will then undertake their ratification procedures. In our case, this will probably involve formal consultation with and approval by the Oireachtas. The agreements do not present any difficulty for Ireland and I think we should consider them as marking a further significant step in the development of a more comprehensive response to international crime and terrorism.
A general approach was reached on the proposed framework decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties. This measure will give rise to the recognition and enforcement throughout the Union of financial penalties imposed by judicial and administrative authorities. For a defined list of offences the principle of dual criminality cannot be invoked by the executing state as a ground for refusal. This list of offences includes those agreed in relation to the European arrest warrant and certain others such as road traffic offences. The principle of dual criminality can be applied for offences not on the agreed list. I hope I have provided the committee with useful information on the recent Council. I am happy to discuss any of these issues.
It has been of great use to the committee. As we have agreed that the meeting will conclude at 7.30 p.m., I ask each member to ask questions and then the Minister may respond.
There has been some discussion at this committee about the thrust of developments at the Convention on the Future of Europe in so far as it relates to convergence of criminal law throughout the Union. Some members of the committee have expressed reservations about this. We do not know what the final outcome of the deliberations will be. Deputy John Bruton is a member of the Presidium and met the committee where he discussed his views on the convergence of certain aspects of criminal law in the Union. What is his precise status as a representative of Ireland? I know there are alternate representatives at the convention. What is the Minister of State's view on where Ireland should stand on the issue of convergence in the field of criminal law?
How does the directive on the minimum standards for the qualification status of third county nationals conflict with the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the residency rights of non-national parents to children born in this country?
The questions raised by Deputy Power are live issues for us. We discussed a paper on the minimum procedural standards for defendants and suspects in criminal proceedings. Will the Minister of State indicate the outcome of the discussions at the Veria meeting? Was there agreement regarding the adoption of minimum procedural standards for suspects in criminal proceedings?
Will the Minister of State tell us what discussions took place between the EU and the US regarding extradition and mutual legal assistance? The major issue of concern was 11 September and the implications for terrorism around the world. The death penalty is on the statute book in the US. Part of our approach to extradition is our refusal to extradite people to countries that use the death penalty. Will we operate a bilateral agreement with the US or will it be done at EU level? This is a live issue in our attempts to combat terrorism and crime.
It is important that this committee gets briefings such as that given to us by the Minister of State as it can be relevant to our daily work. Sky News and other agencies are trying to work us up about terrorism. Given his contact with various Governments, has the Minister of State any comment to make about the real threat posed by terrorists? Television images and reports seem to be impacting on people. While I do not mean to be flippant, perhaps the Minister of State will confirm that we are safe in our beds. This is a prime concern to the public.
I notice that article 4 of the confidential draft agreement between the EU and the US deals with the question of identifying banking information. Upon request of the requesting state, the requested state will give certain information. How does that tie in with the data protection legislation we have here? Is there a conflict?
To which article is the Chairman referring?
Article 4 under the agreement. Certain inquiries are made about a bank account and certain details are to be given from one state to the other state. What is the level of detail involved and is there any conflict with our data protection legislation?
I was asked about the Convention on the Future of Europe. I am advised that Deputy John Bruton's status is that of chairman of the working group, but in a independent capacity - he does not represent Ireland so his views do not reflect those of the Irish Government. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, is our permanent representative on that committee. In the matter of convergence of criminal law, the Irish Government believes as far as possible in the principle of unanimity and agreement sanctioned by the European Parliament for changes in criminal law. We have submitted various amendments based on that principle. The Minister for Justice of the Netherlands used the Council meeting to signal a paper that the Netherlands was tabling in the European convention supporting the development of a separate jurisdiction within the EU for prosecuting certain types of cross-border crime and crime against the interests of the Union, with dedicated legislation and procedures, as an alternative to widespread harmonisation of the criminal law of member states. That will be an interesting development and I have no doubt the Minister will have views on that.
On Deputy Costello's point about the death penalty, the general principle at the moment is that if the death penalty applies in a country it does not preclude extradition to that country, but the authorities in that country must agree not to impose the death penalty. In the discussions we have had with the USA, it has promised that as far as possible - what that means I do not know - it will ensure that a person is not even sentenced to the death penalty.
They will be sent to Guantanamo Bay.
In view of the judicial system and so on, I do now know how that is possible, but that is the advice I have received. On the Green Paper on procedural aspects, discussion is ongoing and we will be submitting our views in the near future. On the question asked by the Chairman, I am advised that there is a judicial process involved here so it will not conflict with our data protection legislation.
A judicial process.
Yes.
What does that mean?
Mr. Hickey
A mutual legal assistance request will itself be subject to a judicial process.
I asked about the general threat of terrorism. I am often forgotten, but it is no problem.
I apologise to the Deputy.
I also asked about the minimum standards directive.
The minimum standards directive will not conflict with the Supreme Court decision. That directive deals with who falls into the category of refugee or person in need of protection and what rights they have. There will be nothing, as I understand it, about the rights of their families to stay so there will be no conflict.
Recent events have shown that the threat of terrorism has reignited. Certain activities which we have all been following closely in the news media for the past couple of months have not diminished the threat of terrorism. I hope there is no connection between the two and that that which was intended to reduce or eliminate terrorism has not had the opposite effect. In view of the resurgence of terrorism, however, it is very important that EU countries work together. I am not an expert in this area - far from it - but as I understand it, that is what these directives are all about.
I do not agree with the idea of exact convergence of criminal law or even much civil law, but I agree with converging our efforts, co-operating and working together to protect the outer boundaries of the community and combat terrorism which originates within the community, although the main threat is coming from outside. This is the process in which Governments, and the EU as a unit, have been engaged. Judging by what has happened as a result of that meeting and the items put forward for decision at the next meeting of 5 and 6 June, certain decisions will be made which will ensure greater co-operation against terrorism. Those involved in intelligence gathering, the justice system and Ministers for the interior have a bigger part to play in this than Ministers for Defence. That is how it will pan out in the end.
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, and his officials for attending the meeting today. The joint committee looks forward to the next occasion on which the Minister of State will brief us on the developments that take place after the next Council meeting.
The joint committee went into private session at 7.30 p.m. and adjourned sine die.