I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Michael McDowell, and his officials. The Minister will brief the committee on the most recent meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, held in Brussels last Thursday and Friday. Members of the committee have been provided with a copy of the agenda, the proposals and a summary report prepared by the Department. It has been confirmed with the Department that the last two items will not be discussed today. I invite the Minister to make a brief statement about the progress that has been made in respect of the other items on the agenda.
Justice and Home Affairs Council: Ministerial Presentation.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss with members of the committee the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting in Brussels last week. The committee has been given a copy of the provisional minutes of the Council meeting, together with a short summary of the main issues discussed. I propose to provide the committee with an overview of the Council proceedings, bearing in mind that it has indicated its particular interest in a number of measures.
The first item discussed was the follow-up to the conclusions adopted at the European Council in Thessaloniki in June of this year. The "Thessaloniki conclusions" built upon the work done at the Tampere and Seville Councils and called for various actions to develop a common policy on illegal immigration, smuggling and trafficking of human beings, external borders and the return of illegal residents. At last week's meeting, the Presidency provided an update of progress on the various actions called for at Thessaloniki. The Commission signalled it will present its proposals on the establishment of an agency for the management of external borders in November.
There was also discussion on the Council directive on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status. The debate focused on the provisions on safe countries of origin. Agreement was reached on providing for a minimum common list of safe third countries of origin that will be binding for all member states. Member states will, however, retain their right to introduce national lists of other safe countries.
The Council achieved consensus on the regulation creating an immigration liaison officers network, pending the opinion of the European Parliament and the lifting of some parliamentary reservations. The network, made up of representatives of the member states, is aimed at facilitating and expediting the collection and exchange of information with a view to contributing to the prevention and combating of illegal immigration, the return of illegal immigrants and the management of legal migration.
Another issue that was discussed was the follow-up to a Council recommendation, adopted at the Justice and Home Affairs Council in April 2003, establishing multinational ad hoc teams to exchange information on terrorists. We discussed how such teams could be made operational. The relevant Council working party was instructed to pursue work on this project with a view to reaching an early agreement.
Political agreement was reached on an agreement between Europol and Russia. The agreement will enhance co-operation on combating serious forms of transnational crime between the Russian Federation and EU member states. The agreement will involve the exchange of information between Europol and Russia.
The civil law area was also considered. Political agreement was reached on a draft regulation on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility. The purpose of the regulation is to bring together in one instrument provisions on matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility. The term "parental responsibility" does not mean what one might immediately think - it relates to guardianship and entitlement to custody. The regulation will apply in civil matters relating to divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment, as well as matters relating to parental responsibility.
The Council noted the progress made in relation to the decision authorising member states, in the interest of the Community, to ratify or accede to the 1996 Hague Convention on the Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children. It was decided to await the opinion of the European Parliament on the proposed measure, which is due this month, before adapting the decision.
A draft framework decision on the principle of mutual recognition of confiscation orders was also examined. The purpose of the draft decision is to establish the rules under which a member state will execute in its territory a confiscation order issued by a court of another member state. The Council reached agreement on proposals for sharing confiscated property. It was also agreed that further work needs to be done on a German proposal that would allow the non-enforcement of an order on the basis of fundamental constitutional rights not being observed.
There was also a discussion on a number of provisions of the framework decision on the application of the ne bis in idem principle. This principle relates to the prohibition of double jeopardy and provides that nobody should be prosecuted or tried twice for the same criminal behaviour. Progress was made on a number of technical provisions. Further work needs to be done on this measure before it can be agreed by the Council, however.
The Council was informed by the United Kingdom of problems linked to the trafficking of drugs in Afghanistan, which is the major source of the total amount of seized opium produced on the world markets. It seems that 80% of the opium seized in Europe originates in Afghanistan. The UK has a role in co-ordinating international efforts to counter narcotic production in Afghanistan. It is in the process of organising a counter-narcotics conference in Kabul in January for operational experts in the field of combating drugs.
I understand that members of the committee would like to discuss a number of other issues to which I have referred.
I thank the Minister for his attendance at such an early hour. I welcome the update he has given the committee on his work on the European front. A number of questions arise as a consequence of the Minister's contribution.
I would like to ask about the EU common policy on the illegal immigration, smuggling and trafficking of human beings. Will the Minister explain why so many illegal immigrants are coming to Ireland, given that there are few direct flights from such people's places of origin? He may need to return to the committee at a later date to provide such details. I do not know if one can take a direct flight to this country from African countries such as Nigeria. How can people get to Ireland if, in most cases, they have to travel through another European state? What progress has been made on agreements on the return of such immigrants?
Can the Minister update the committee on the number of applications for asylum status here? Can he tell us if there were discussions at the Council meeting about people who have been awarded leave to live and work here? I would like details about a Nigerian person who was given leave to stay in Ireland three, four or five years ago and whose children are at school and college in this country. Such children do not receive funding at college. Not only do they not qualify for a maintenance grant, but they do not qualify for free fees. Has this issue been discussed in the European context? The free fees initiative is working throughout the European Union and is funded by it. The fact that the college-going children of somebody who has been working legally and paying tax here for three, four or five years cannot go to college, in effect, seems awfully restrictive. How can such persons afford to pay for their children's education? The Chairman and I would have difficulty in paying full fees, etc.
I am sure that every member of the committee has encountered similar cases. The provisions in this regard seem to be in need of remedy.
I agree. Perhaps the Minister will raise this matter at European level. The final point I would like to make relates to confiscated property. What is meant by "the sharing of confiscated property"? If my bank account is confiscated in Spain, for example——
How many such accounts does the Deputy have?
——do the Spanish authorities receive half of what is contained in it, arising from the court order? What arrangements have been made in respect of sharing such receipts? Do the provisions in this regard take account of the expenses that might be incurred in recovering the funds?
Is the Minister in a position to tell the joint committee if inward migration to Ireland has levelled off? I attended a conference in Stockholm in 2000 at which delegates were told that, per capita, the level of immigration was highest in Belgium and Ireland. As many of these people were economic migrants, that was probably because of our economic boom. Has there been a levelling off in the past two or three years from the peak rate of between 1,100 and 1,200 people entering the country each month? The rate rose suddenly from a base in 1995 of only 200 to 300 to up to 15,000 per year.
I may have wrongly perceived that some of our European neighbours were turning a blind eye to human trafficking to Ireland from parts of Russia or Nigeria but, as Deputy Finian McGrath inferred, they had to pass through other European countries. Did those countries pass the buck by deciding that if people moved on to Ireland, it was not their problem? Is there any evidence of that or are the immigration laws being tightly enforced in other European countries, particularly France and Great Britain? Perhaps it may not have been considered appropriate, but have we ever analysed the proportion of those coming to our jurisdiction who are economic migrants rather than genuine asylum seekers fleeing terror in fear for their lives?
The Minister made a very interesting point about guardianship and custody. Are we moving close to a common policy throughout the soon-to-be enlarged EU and to a position of consensus with regard to custody and guardianship? Will there be a level playing field throughout Europe rather than a scenario in which different jurisdictions place different emphasis on different areas? This is a very important issue given the freedom of movement that exists in the EU. We have seen instances of parents coming to Ireland and taking children to other European countries against the wishes of their former partners. It would be excellent to establish unified laws throughout the length and breadth of the EU.
I welcome the Minister and his officials to the joint committee. Has an assessment been made of the effectiveness of the new immigration legislation that was passed before the summer? The Minister introduced the legislation to allow the State to monitor immigration carefully and, to address illegal immigration in particular. In the context of the common policy the EU is attempting to implement, what cognisance is being taken of international conventions in this area? Is Europe thinking of proceeding alone in terms of dealing with safe countries and mechanisms to secure its borders? I would like to know how far down that road the Union has travelled, as Europe seems to have begun to take a hard line in the co-ordination of its policy. The EU has begun to adopt its own approach as distinct from those outlined in international conventions and agreements. To what extent is the Minister keeping an eye on this process to ensure that he keeps within the provisions of the Geneva convention?
Have we designated any safe country of origin at this time? If we have, will the Minister provide the joint committee with a list of safe countries and outline the number he proposes to catalogue? What role will the European Union have in compiling a common list of safe countries and what is regarded as a minimum list? How will the Minister be satisfied that the countries are safe given the fact that they are countries of origin which would be the nub of the reason a person applied for asylum in the first place?
Is the Russian Federation seen by Europol as a major source of criminal activity in Europe and is it the main source of human trafficking? I would like the Minister to elaborate the quantity of transnational crime originating in the federation.
I welcome the provisions on guardianship. It is ironic that though Afghanistan has just been liberated from terrorism, 80% of all heroin coming to Europe has its source there. It may have been liberated in one sense, but it is causing enormous headaches in another. It seems amazing. If the rule of law is supposed to operate in a liberated country, it should not be able to supply markets with illegal goods to such an extent. As the heroin is reaching Ireland, can the Minister indicate the steps to be taken to prevent the supply of drugs to this country from that source?
I welcome the Minister and his officials. I listened carefully to the Minister as he spoke of the common policies on illegal immigration, smuggling, trafficking of human beings, external borders and the return of illegal residents. I am concerned by a common theme in all this that involves the use of many negative terms by Deputy McDowell and other Ministers. Does the Minister accept that 95% of illegal immigrants are people who are simply trying to enter a country in which they feel they can find a job and a house? The comments at the meeting did not reflect the reality that they are not all drug traffickers and people involved in crime. As someone who has worked with legal and illegal immigrants and who has fought their cases over the past 12 months, I feel that there has been a total misrepresentation. Is the view outlined the general view throughout the Council?
I welcome the Minister's statement that member states will retain the right to introduce national lists of other safe countries. A high percentage of Irish people are concerned that many of their rights and much of their sovereignty is being infringed. A recent opinion poll showed that 40% of the people want Ireland to be assertive and to take a strong, independent, sovereign position on EU matters.
Deputy Costello spoke about terrorism and I will touch later on the subject of Afghanistan. Are Justice Ministers in the Council concerned about the involvement of states in terrorism? Does the fact that some states have records of collusion with terrorists or the use of death squads ever come up at meetings of the Council?
The trafficking of drugs has been made worse by the intervention of the USA in Afghanistan. Is it now accepted at EU level and, in particular, among Justice Ministers that many of the drugs hitting the streets in Dublin and across the EU originate in Afghanistan? The situation is getting worse and crime is increasing. We have seen the effects in the form of deaths on our streets and greater numbers of young people becoming involved in drug abuse. Can the Minister and his colleagues highlight this issue and make an impact on the problem?
Does the veto still operate at Council meetings? What are the Minister's powers in respect of decisions made?
It would be remiss of me to fail to raise the matter of the imprisonment of my colleague, Deputy Joe Higgins——
I knew the Deputy would.
——and of Councillor Clare Daly. Do other European Union member states have political prisoners? Will the Minister intervene on behalf of Deputy Joe Higgins?
Where would Ireland stand in a spectrum extending from soft to tough as regards the attitude of various countries to the asylum question? Where are we in the European league? Are certain countries softer or tougher than others? Is the number of people seeking asylum not sufficiently small to allow asylum seekers to be easily integrated into the system?
Has the education of immigrants, asylum seekers and those with refugee status ever been a major part of ministers' discussions? Education and awareness of the needs and different cultures of the communities from which the asylum seekers and those with refugee status come does not appear to have figured in the Ministers' discussions. States appear to be of the view that problem issues rather than proactive interventions are the areas in which they should become involved.
I will ask the Minister to respond to members because we want to move on to the Criminal Justice Bill. Members have raised a number of issues, some of which are pertinent to the talks in Thessaloniki, while others are not.
Deputy Finian McGrath referred to the damage heroin is doing. We need to be realistic and discuss the damage our home grown industry, alcohol, is doing. This was noted in a report published yesterday that shows that the damage being caused to young people and adults by heroin is negligible when compared to the damage caused as a result of abuse of alcohol.
I will first address trends in asylum-seeking because this was the first issue raised by Deputy Finian McGrath. To put the issue in its historical context, there were 400 asylum applications per annum in 1995, rising to a high of 11,634 in 2002. The trend this year is downwards, with a 21% reduction in applications recorded between September 2002 and September 2003. A 50% reduction was recorded in September this year compared to the same period last year, which means just less than 1,200 people applied for asylum in September 2002 compared to around 600 during the same month this year. This downward trend appears to be accelerating in the wake of the Supreme Court decision on Irish-born children and in the context of new legislative measures that have been introduced.
I was asked if we had studied the effect of the new legislation. As it has only been effective as of 15 and 17 September, it would be a little premature to make any claims about it at this stage. Anecdotally, however, I received a telephone call last night from an acquaintance who stated he saw carrier liability being operated in Paris on a flight he had taken. It is, therefore, being operated and I imagine it will be effective.
On countries of origin, in 2002 there were, as we are aware, roughly 12,000 applicants - the precise figure was 11,634 - 34.8% of whom were from Nigeria, that is, more than 4,000 applicants; 14.4% from Romania; 4.6% from Moldova; 3.1% from Zimbabwe and 3% from the Ukraine. These were the top five countries for asylum applications. Of a total of 6,663 applicants for asylum thus far this year, 40.4% are Nigerian; 10.6% Romanian; 3.2% are from the Democratic Republic of Congo; 3.2% from Moldova and 2.5% from Ghana. Nigeria and Romania account for roughly 50% in both years, but the proportion of Nigerians within this group has grown in the past year. We have concluded a return agreement in respect of both Romania and Nigeria.
I was asked how many applicants are economic migrants and how many refugees. Deputy Finian McGrath put the question in a different form, asking whether I accepted that the vast majority of them were economic migrants. I accept the Deputy's point; the vast majority are not genuine asylum seekers with some 90% of applications being found to be unfounded. While I am not sure of the latest figure, typically 50% of applications are abandoned soon after they are made, meaning that applicants walk away from the process and no longer pursue their application. Asylum applications are, therefore, treated as a ticket to get into the country. Once this has happened, no serious prosecution of the asylum application takes place.
The annual cost to the State of dealing with the asylum issue in 2002-03 is estimated, across Departments, to be in the order of €330 million. In my Department alone, the agencies dealing with asylum account for between 800 and 1,000 civil servants, a substantial proportion of administrative staff. My Department spends €47 million simply on processing and accommodation issues. This is a serious problem and in the current circumstances, in which all sides in the Dáil and Seanad are calling for funds to be allocated for various purposes, the level of administrative, governmental and financial resources being diverted into a flow of people, 90% of whom are found not to be genuine asylum seekers on investigation, is significant. I make no apology for saying that a significant amount of governmental and financial resources are being diverted needlessly into what is, in fact, illegal migration. I stress that 80% of foreigners are here legally.
All I hear is that they are costing us loads of money.
They cost a huge amount. What I was about to say was that immigration will continue as long as this country is economically successful. Migrant workers are playing a significant role in sustaining our economic growth.
Will the Minister put a figure on their contribution to the economy?
It is hard for me to put a figure on it. Between 1 January and 31 July 2003, some 30,000 non-nationals entered the State legally to take up jobs through the work permit scheme. This compares to 40,000 in 2002, 36,000 in 2001 and 18,000 in 2000. Incidentally, as some of the work permits issued are renewals, the figure is not accumulative. Migrant workers play a substantial role in our economic growth and success. Anybody who doubts that must be blind in the sense of not looking around.
Many people believe foreigners are costing the State a great deal of money. The Minister should inform them that the opposite is the case.
We should not blur illegal migration with legal migration. The former is costing us a considerable amount of money under the asylum rubric. Legal migration is beneficial to the country and it will be a permanent feature as long as the economy prospers and grows.
Another point which may be of interest to members is that there are tentative moves to carry out a study on legal migration into the European Union with a view to establishing quotas to which member states can subscribe on a voluntary basis. Such a system would allow Ireland to decide to have 20,000 immigrants next year. The requirements of all the member states of the European Union would be put down on one piece of paper.
At the suggestion of the Italian Presidency, a European Commission study has commenced on whether that should not be turned into something positive, in terms of our dealings with countries of origin. Bearing in mind that there is a need for migrant workers in the European Union, we could focus on legal migration into Europe with all the member states informing the countries of origin of its collective requirements. This would be a positive step if, instead of dealing with illegal migration, people could co-operate with us on legal migration.
We have been making that point for a number of years. As Deputy McGrath stated, many people coming here as illegal immigrants are, in fact, economic immigrants and the idea of a quota system from the countries that are most affected is an obvious way of putting some rationale on the situation.
I am sure the Italian Presidency was listening intently to the Deputy and it was on account of his contribution that it has actually commenced the study.
It has fallen on deaf ears here. Perhaps the Minister will push that agenda in the incoming Presidency. Many of our problems stem from the fact that we do not have a policy on this issue. If we had one we would be able to deal with the issue more coherently. Some 30,000 immigrants——
It is not a question of there being no policy. The myth is constantly perpetrated that Ireland has no policy. Ireland has made provision for substantial legal migration into the country on the basis of individuals securing employment rights. Whether it is correct to go down the road Deputy Costello suggests we should establish quotas for the Congo and Nigeria or wherever else is debatable. It is easy to throw it out as desirable, it is not so easy to stand it up afterwards and say that this is what our economy most needs.
I will explain to the Minister how it can be done.
The Deputy may do so on another occasion.
Deputy Costello is asking questions that I am trying to answer.
The Minister should not be tempted by Opposition members.
Deputy McGrath asked another question on confiscation orders. These are attributes of the new regime. If the amount confiscated is less than €10,000, the executing state, that is the state where the confiscation takes place, will take the lot. Sums below that amount are pocketed by the executing state. In all other cases, 50% of the amount confiscated goes to the executing state and 50% to the requesting state. There is also provision in the framework decision to deal with a situation where the executing state incurs large or exceptional costs. In other words, if one had to go to the High Court and a case lasted for two weeks thus resulting in considerable legal costs, those costs can be reimbursed to the executing state on an exceptional basis.
On the Afghan issue, it has to be said that the operation in Afghanistan has not changed some fundamentals in the country. It is not a single homogenous state, it is one that is divided into provinces and tribal areas that are dominated by local potentates, or, as the western media terms them, warlords. It is not simply a matter, therefore, of whatever is decided in Kabul having the writ of law throughout the country.
The issue of the growing of opium poppies for reward is not an easy one. We can naively believe that some diversion programme offering more money to Afghan peasant farmers to grow cotton or whatever else will make them switch from one to the other. One would need to equalise the price of cotton with that available for opium. Such a measure might price Afghan cotton out of the market.
A second point we have to bear in mind in regard to the growing of these substances is that, in many cases, the farmer is both rewarded and threatened. It should not be assumed that a farmer is a free agent in deciding whether he will grow opium if local warlord interests or whoever puts the finger on him and asks him to co-operate.
There is some evidence of relocation of opium poppy growth from Afghanistan to neighbouring countries such as northern Pakistan, Tajikistan and such places. Simply designating Afghanistan as the source of 80% of opium production and remedying the problem there will not solve the overall problem. This is a highly lucrative market. At an informal lunch discussion with my colleagues I pointed out that as well as dealing with supply issues, demand in Europe is an area that has to be addressed.
On the question of parental responsibilities issues and custody, the intention is to bring about, not a uniform law but a general set of legally accepted principles. This would bring about an acceptance that one would gain no advantage in the European Union by fleeing with a child from one jurisdiction to another. It strikes at the heart of proper family law if people can just up with their children and go from A to B. Most Deputies will know that it is very easy to offer a battered wife refuge who has come to Ireland with two children, especially when the children or wife are Irish citizens. Family law would effectively break down and evaporate if everyone can, on making a complaint of physical or psychological abuse, move with their children and take advantage of free travel in the European Union and make access for the other partner to the children de facto impossible and require them to commence litigation at a distance. A balance has to be struck. The measures that are being contemplated are to bring the fundamental core principle that where children and their parents ordinarily reside is the venue which has prima facie jurisdiction to decide who has custody and what the future of those children should be rather than allowing people just to forum shop and put their spouse or partner at a disadvantage in relation to the children.
The EU wants to introduce a system of managed migration flow. It wants to create a system of legal means of entry and to combat illegal entry. It is easy to portray the European Union as engaged in some kind of fortress Europe policy. If one was in a Mediterranean country and saw boatload after boatload of people crossing from north Africa, one would find it difficult to deal with, especially if the migrants were coming from a country that was not their country of origin. Asylum seekers are being trafficked through Libya, Turkey, Middle Eastern countries and the Maghreb countries of north Africa to the Union for reward by Union smugglers. It is difficult for the Mediterranean countries, such as Malta, Cyprus, Italy and Spain, to deal with this phenomenon.
It was asked of me how some asylum seekers get into Ireland when it should not be so easy for them to do so. There are two answers. First, the new carrier liability rules have yet to be assessed. They have only been in operation for a fortnight and I cannot give a scientific view whether they will turn out to be effective. I am confident they will have an effect. One of the big black holes in our system of immigration control is our common travel area with the United Kingdom. It is possible for a Nigerian to travel without a visa from Nigeria to London as a tourist - this happens frequently - and then hop on a boat to Belfast or Dublin and apply to our Refugee Application Commissioner requesting asylum. Therefore, the point at which that person would have been observed entering the European Union was a point at which no objection was taken because the ultimate question as to why they were entering was not relevant at the time. A Nigerian businessman flying to London without a visa is not subject to a physical barrier or process that would determine whether he would come to Dublin afterwards and claim asylum. This is obviously unsatisfactory.
We have made provision in the new law for safe third countries, and it is my intention to negotiate a safe third country agreement with as many countries as possible, particularly the United Kingdom. This would ensure that anybody traveling from the United Kingdom to Ireland would effectively be asked to conduct his or her application for asylum in Ireland in the United Kingdom and not to reside here while doing so, and vice versa. If we have an entirely porous passport-free Border between the State and Northern Ireland, it makes sense for us to have such an agreement.
The Chairman asked where the Irish stand on a soft-to-tough spectrum. We have the second highest per capita rate of refugee applications in Europe, even though we are one of the most difficult countries to enter because of our geographical position.
What are the figures for September?
I am not in a position to provide that information, but we had the second highest rate of application in 2002. I believe Austria has the highest rate. Ireland, Germany, Austria and Belgium are always vying for the top notch on the scale or the notches immediately below this.
It is said that Ireland's laws or conditions are tough and that our protections are weak for asylum seekers. One has to realise that there are 15 member states and, for some reason, on a percapita basis, we are getting a disproportionately high number of asylum seekers coming here. Much of this has to do with the fact that we are a common law country. If one were a Romanian or Nigerian who desired to live in any civil law country, one would have to register with one’s local prefecture and police, and one’s landlord would have to register one’s lease. The state, in civil law countries, has much stronger tabs on everybody and knows more about what they are doing than in a common law country. Once one enters Ireland, there are few enough monitoring mechanisms.
Getting there is the problem.
I have to be realistic. The point I have made about Nigeria and Romania applies. The citizens of these countries amount to half our refugees year-on-year. It is not exactly clear why Romanians choose Ireland as a port of call but it may have something to do with our welfare laws.
It was because of the World Cup game.
It may be that our welfare laws, which are based on the principle of universal entitlement, are more attractive than those of other countries, which might be more restrictive. I have no doubt that language and access through the United Kingdom on a visa-free basis are the reasons Nigerians are attracted to Ireland.
A question was asked about the safe third countries we have designated. All the European Union member states are effectively safe countries of origin and safe third countries. I have designated the following countries on 15 September: the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia, Malta, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Estonia, Hungary, Cyprus, Bulgaria and Romania.
Heretofore, a person from Romania claiming asylum in Ireland faced a reversal of the onus of proof. He or she is presumed not to be an asylum seeker and the onus is on him or her to rebut that assumption. Romania, as an applicant country to the European Union, is in the process of negotiating its entry, as is Bulgaria.
I am worried by the trend in respect of Nigeria and about the common travel area implication and I will have to address the matter. Two hundred and seventy-two Nigerians applied for asylum in Ireland in August, 110 in Austria, 112 in France and 117 in Spain. It is not my imagination that leads me to believe that Ireland is the destination of choice for Nigerian asylum seekers.
Is it the policy of the Minister's Department to move refugees and asylum seekers from one location to another? I am aware of a couple in a provincial town that were given two days' notice to go to Dublin. If children are going to school, their having to move represents a terrible disruption. Seeing that we have the second highest rate of application for asylum in the European Union, what is the position regarding our accommodation?
Will the Minister comment on the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, which states that vast sums were spent on premises? I believe one of them cost €3.5 million. Is it the Department's intention to retain these strategies and keep spending this money?
As a number of the questions are not pertinent to the Justice and Home Affairs meeting in Thessaloniki, perhaps the Minister will give a brief reply.
The accounting officer of my Department will appear before the Committee of Public Accounts on Thursday this week on the Comptroller and Auditor General's remarks on the cost of asylum accommodation. As he is preparing a detailed response, I do not wish to deal with the issue at this stage. Some of the accommodation is provided in my constituency and I share the Deputy's concern that resources should be tied up in this way.
Since April 2000, 31,600 applicants have been accommodated directly by the State under direct provision arrangements. Members will be aware that we have recently discontinued the entitlement to people to switch to private rented accommodation with social welfare assistance. One must now avail of direct accommodation and the choice of moving into other accommodation for which the State must pay is no longer an option. One must go to a reception centre for approximately a fortnight while matters are being sorted out, following which one is moved to an accommodation centre. It is not State policy to move or dislocate people thereafter unless in one or two cases there is reason for doing so. It is not State policy to keep people on the move if that is what the Deputy is implying.
On Deputy McGrath's question on education, over the past six months the European Union has established a joint body on integration. It is considered that we have not kept pace in respect of integration initiatives. In Ireland the reception and integration agency does a lot of work on integration. There is the question of resources in relation to educating asylum seekers. First, people must go through the asylum process. There is no point educating asylum seekers about their entitlements if the name of the game is to decide within six months whether they will be going home.
I am referring to people who have been here for a number of years and who are entitled to work here. If their children go to college——
I share the Deputy's concern in this regard. In many instances it has nothing to do with asylum seekers. There are strange cases relating to American-born children who have been brought up by relatives in Ireland. When they reach the age of 17 or 18 and apply to go to university, they are asked to pay full fees.
It is a problem which must be grasped as there are approximately 30,000 work permit holders in that situation.
I share the Deputy's anxiety but it is a matter for the Minister for Education and Science.
It is a matter of equality for the Minister.
I have indicated that I share the Deputy's concerns but I cannot lay down policies for every Department.
The Minister could talk to people about the issue.
I have written to people about the issue.
We will now close this session. I thank the Minister and his officials who attended here today. I am sure members will be back again for a further positive discussion on the issue.