Vol. 1 No. 47
I move:
That in consideration of motions of Dáil Éireann of 16 December 2003 and of Seanad Éireann of 17 December 2003, the Joint Committee proposes that Dáil Éireann approve the exercise by the State of the options of the five items mentioned under the motion of referral.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, and his officials to the meeting. I ask the Minister of State to accept my apologies for the delay in commencing with the meeting. I now invite him the make a brief presentation.
Thank you, Chairman, and members. I am attending the joint committee on behalf of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, who, unfortunately, is unavoidably absent, being engaged elsewhere on official business.
I wish to thank the joint committee for making time available to discuss the exercise by the State of the option under the Fourth Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam of the regulations and proposed regulations concerning the uniform format of visas and residence permits. Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, asylum and immigration matters come under Title IV of the amended treaty establishing the European Community. Title IV specifies the measures the European Council is to adopt in the visa, asylum and immigration fields. The application of Title IV of the EC Treaty to Ireland is subject to the provisions of the Fourth Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam, the effect of which is that Ireland has three months from the date a proposal or initiative is presented to the Council to notify the Presidency of the Council in writing of its wish to take part in the adoption and application of the proposed measure under Article 3. Under Article 4 of the protocol, Ireland may also accept a measure at any time after it has been adopted.
In aiming to establish progressively an area of freedom, security and justice in the EU, the Amsterdam treaty marked a major advance. The conclusions of the special EU Council in Tampere on the creation of this area of freedom, security and justice underlined the importance of ensuring fair treatment for third country nationals who reside legally in the territory of member states. The need for more efficient management of migration flows and illegal immigration and the importance of effective controls at external borders as a necessary complement to the implementation of these policies were also emphasised.
It is within the framework of the Amsterdam treaty and the Tampere guidelines that the European Commission in April 2001 proposed the regulations which are before the committee today, namely, Council Regulation (EC) No. 334/2002 amending Regulation No. (EC) No. 1683/95 laying down a uniform format for visas; Council Regulation (EC) No. 333/2002 on a uniform format for forms for affixing the visa issued by member states to persons holding travel documents which are not recognised by the member state drawing up the form and Council Regulation (EC) No. 1030/2002 laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third country nationals.
The aim of these regulations is to render travel and residence documents more secure. A harmonised system of security features provides greater security against counterfeiting and falsification. The proposals also allow for the rapid adoption of new security features if the necessity should arise.
In June 2001 the Government approved the bringing of motions before the Houses of the Oireachtas in regard to these proposed regulations. However, due to the pressure of business, the Oireachtas was unable to consider the matter before the summer recess and we were not in a position to opt in to the proposals within the three month deadline set out in the protocol.
In the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001, the European Commission was asked by member states to take immediate action to improve document security. Clearly, it was important to be able to detect persons who tried to use forged official documents to gain entry to the European Union. It was felt that more reliable checking was necessary to ensure that the person who presented a document was the same person to whom the document was originally issued. Neither the visa nor the residence permit contained a photograph or other reliable means of identification. Consequently, it was decided that it was urgent to provide for the incorporation into both the visa and residence permit of a photograph meeting high security standards.
As a result, the European Commission presented to the Council a proposal which modified the earlier proposal presented in April 2001. The main changes were aimed at improving the security features of the documents and included the integration of a photograph produced to high security standards and the possibility of changing the colours of the visa format if required to counteract forgery.
The proposals on the modification of the uniform format for visas and the uniform format for forms for affixing the visa were adopted by the Council on 18 February 2002 and the proposal laying down a uniform format for residence permits was adopted on 13 June 2002. The intention, following adoption of the three proposals by the Council, is to exercise the option under Article 4 of the protocol, that is, to exercise the option after the measure has been adopted.
Following the adoption of these three regulations, member states continued to seek further enhancement of the security features of the uniform format for visas and other travel documents. They were in favour of including biometric identifiers in the visa and the residence permit to establish a more reliable link between visa, passport and the person presenting them.
At the informal Justice and Home Affairs Ministers' meeting on 28 and 29 March 2003, member states called again for a Commission proposal to integrate biometric features into the uniform format for visas and residence permits for visas and residence permits for third country nationals.
The European Council on 19 and 20 June 2003 confirmed that a coherent approach is needed in the EU on biometric identifiers or biometric data which would result in harmonised solutions for documents for third country nationals, EU citizens' passports and information systems and invited the Commission to prepare appropriate proposals starting with the visa.
As a result the Commission presented the following proposals: a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1683/95 laying down a uniform format for visas and a proposal for a Council regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 1030/2002 laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third country nationals.
The purpose of these regulations is to require member states to integrate biometrics identifiers into the visa and the residence permit for third country nationals in a harmonised way. The primary biometric identifier proposed will be the facial image and the secondary biometric identifier will be the fingerprint. The Commission also intends to bring forward the final date for the implementation of the photograph from 2007 to 2005.
I will now give an outline of each of the regulations and proposed regulations. The following are the main provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No. 334/2002. Article 1 allows for further technical specifications relating to security requirements to be established in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 6(2). It integrates the photograph into the visa. Also, it allows for the colour of the visa sticker to be changed. Articles 2 and 3 refer to technical implementation issues and Article 4 provides a date of entry into force of the regulation.
The main provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No. 333/2002 on a uniform format for forms affixing the visa are as follows. Article 1 defines "form for affixing a visa". Article 2 states that the technical specifications relating to the security features shall be established in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 5(2). Articles 3 and 4 cover secrecy of the technical specifications and data protection issues. Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 are technical implementation articles. Article 9 provides the date the regulation shall enter into force.
The main provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1030/2002 laying down a uniform format for residence permit for third country nationals are as follows. Article 1 describes the uniform format and also gives a definition of a residence permit and third country national. Article 2 states that additional technical specifications shall be in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 7(2). Articles 3 and 4 deal with the secrecy of the technical specifications and data protection issues. Article 5 sets out classes of third country nationals to whom the regulation does not apply. Articles 6, 7 and 8 are technical implementation articles. Article 9 sets out the timeframe for the implementation of the various measures. Article 10 provides the date the regulation shall enter into force.
The main provisions of Council regulation amending regulation (EC) 1683/95 laying down a uniform format for visas are as follows. Article 1(1) amends existing articles to include technical specifications regarding biometric data. Article 1(2) inserts a new Article 2(a) dealing with measures for the implementation of the regulation. Article 1(3) deals with conditions for inclusion of machine readable information. Article 1(4) states that a storage medium shall contain a facial image and two fingerprint images of the holder. Article 1(5) sets out the dates for implementation of the various elements. Article 2 provides the date the regulation shall enter into force.
The main provisions of Council regulation amending Council Regulation (EC) 1030/2002 laying down a uniform format for residence permits for third country nationals are as follows. Article 1(1) amends existing articles to include technical specifications regarding biometric data. Article 1(2) deals with conditions for inclusion of machine readable information. Article 1(3) states that a storage medium shall contain a facial image and two fingerprint images of the holder. Article 1(4) sets out the dates for implementation of the various elements. Article 2 provides the date the regulation shall enter into force.
I ask the committee to support Ireland's acceptance of these regulations and its opt in to the proposed regulations. These are important measures in regard to security of travel documents. Only last weekend the European Council endorsed the work in this area and it is essential that Ireland fully participates in these developments and we would appreciate the support of the committee for our proposal to do so.
This is an issue similar to that with which we dealt yesterday, namely, the European arrest warrant. Haste has been introduced into the debate. We should take time to consider the implications of these steps. Government approval for them was obtained on 11 November yet we are rushing them through in the last two days of this session to meet an arbitrary deadline of 2 January 2004. I wish to ask the Minister of State, what would happen if we do not achieve that deadline? Will the world come to a standstill? Is there an option to opt in at a future date if we do not pass these regulations and have a proper debate.
There seems to be a systematic process of fast-tracking and rubber-stamping a series of major EU proposals which have the effect of increasing judicial, security and policing integration between the member states and this seems to have happened since the Minister, Deputy McDowell, took office. The problem has accelerated since the autumn. We dealt with one such issue last night and we will debate it again later tonight in the House. Although I hope I am wrong, it seems that the debate on this has been suppressed because it is stated in the House every time these motions arise that if they pass without debate, then they are sent to the committee. In fairness, the committee, which has a huge workload, finds it difficult to find time to debate these motions properly. When there is this time constraint and we are told we must deal with it today because it is going before the House tomorrow, then that is not a satisfactory way to deal with legislation.
These EU regulations will make biometric data, that is, fingerprints and facial images, compulsory for visas and residence permits for third country nationals. It has been admitted that the extension of biometric documents and passports for EU citizens will follow, and that was mentioned in the original proposal, which came from the European Commission, stating that another proposal for inclusion of biometrics and personal data on documents of EU citizens will follow later this year. Can the Minister of State give us any indication on whether that is being progressed?
It is not just the citizens from third countries who will be affected by this in the long run and the biometric data included will be held on national as well as EU databases. So far there is no guarantee that this data will not be made available to non-EU states such as the United States, which is demanding that similar procedures apply in the case of visas to the United States. This issue, the move towards this type of data being included on visas in passports in the future, is more of the architecture of universal surveillance. It has more to do with political and social control than with public security and, as such, is not acceptable.
We should not consent to this because it is a move towards the dreaded "big brother" scenario mentioned so long ago by George Orwell. This type of move has been accelerated since 11 September. We stated at that time, and state continually, that we need to be very careful in going down this road on these questions because they impact on human rights and data protection issues, and that is why I say there is a need for debate.
The Irish Council for Civil Liberties and others have expressed great concerns about this issue. The director of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, in a statement that was short and succinct, covered all of the points I wish to make with the exception some technical ones to which I will return. She stated that regretfully the atrocities of 11 September are yet again being used as an emotive cover to introduce measures which have more to do with social control and the loss of freedom than enhancing security. The council believes that the proposals do not have sufficient safeguards to protect the privacy rights nor provide any guarantee with respect to who can access the information or that the information will not be accessed in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner or for a purpose other than establishing a person's identity at a point of entry to the EU. She stated that while these first measures target migrant workers, international students and refugees, there are also proposals to include biometric information on EU passports in the future. The fact that these sorts of measures are being rushed through without democratic debate or effective public scrutiny, she continued, is of serious concern to the council and displays a certain disregard for the role of Parliament and civil society. She continued by saying that these measures of course also have significant financial implications arising from the installation of technology to create documentation, the cost of storage and management of data, and the need to have verification systems installed at border points. It is not clear how this will be dealt with and we are unlikely to get adequate answers to our questions on it in the short time allocated to the measures by the committee.
While I was researching this matter, I checked with other non-governmental organisations and human rights organisations. They did not know that the Government was proceeding at this pace with these measures and that they would be passed without debate other than at committee. That is why the committee has received no submissions on this issue and why no requests to attend and give a public presentation have been received, but this does not mean that there is no interest in this topic. I propose that, if possible, the committee delay passing these measures until such time in the new year as we can hear of their full import and of the dangers involved.
When preparing this, did the Minister seek the opinion from the Human Rights Commission under the provisions of section 8(b) of the Human Rights Commission Act 2000? Whether or not he takes this on board, the commission was set up to deal with issues of human rights where there is likely to be an infringement of, or a reduction in, human rights, or if there is a possibility of enhancing human rights. In this case, it would have been appropriate for the Minister to seek such an opinion.
I welcome the Minister of State to the committee. I wish to ask two questions. First, does he have figures for the number of people who have tried to gain entry to the EU using false or forged documents? As a result, he must have some figures to support this proposal. What figures form the basis for the Minister's support for this proposal? Second, will there be a financial impact on the State on the introduction of these measures?
I thank the Minister of State for attending the committee. I support these regulations. I am very surprised that the Sinn Féin Party has come out against these regulations. Two of the biggest threats affecting the European Union are the security threat from international terrorism and the difficulties posed by illegal immigrants coming into the EU as a whole, and individual EU countries in particular.
It is not long since nine people died in a truck in Wexford on their way into this country. That was as a direct result of people who ply the trade of human trafficking, one of the most disgusting and reprehensible crimes being peddled throughout the European Union. The reason these people are in a position to ply this despicable trade is that the sort of efficient regime for dealing with immigrants proposed by these regulations is not in place. In the absence of such a modern framework, based on technology, the flourishing trade in human trafficking continues unabated and is one of the most serious problems in the EU.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh mentioned human rights and I ask him to reflect on the human rights that should be available to tens of thousands of people who are trafficked around Europe by unscrupulous criminals, many of them from eastern Europe. That is the area where most illegal immigrants enter the EU. We are not against people entering the EU provided they comply with the regulations and rules governing entry, but it seems eminently sensible that we use modern technology to ensure that rules and regulations which we have all agreed to are properly enforced.
My second reason for supporting these regulations, and one I am surprised Sinn Fein does not agree with, is the threat from international terrorism. Despite what Deputy Ó Snodaigh said, his party's refusal to accept or endorse these regulations make it more likely that serious incidents of international terrorism will occur in the EU. The wider community may not be listening to today's debate but they should be aware that that is Sinn Féin's position, which is very worrying.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh raised concerns about human rights issues, a matter which also arose in our discussions of the data bank. My position is straightforward. If people who want to enter the EU do not engage in criminal activity or human trafficking then they have nothing to fear in these regulations. That is why it is surprising that some people oppose these reasonable and sensible regulations.
I welcome the Minister of State and his staff. I also welcome anything that increases public confidence in traceability and in counteracting forgery, which is widespread in the illegal movement of people across Europe. These sophisticated illegal activities represent serious challenges to be overcome and we should be moving towards this if it is being promoted by Europe, particularly if it gives people confidence. This measure must be supported and, like Deputy Power, I am surprised by the caution with which Sinn Féin has greeted it, as it is important we have greater traceability. From our student days we know how easy it was to deal with ID cards, and increasingly now greater scrutiny is necessary to differentiate real and forged ID cards. Greater traceability is needed and we must move with Europe's proposals, as those will serve all citizens interests. I support this measure. It may have been introduced at short notice but it is designed to benefit everyone.
I thank all members for their contributions. Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred to the era of Big Brother. George Orwell was a very gloomy individual and predicted Big Brother would have arrived by 1984, almost 20 years ago. That did not come to pass and we are living in a world that is far removed from Big Brother and is moving further away from that image every day. The collapse of totalitarian regimes, particularly in Europe, has much to do with the spectre of Big Brother fading away.
There is some suggestion that we are acting hastily and that the deadline is an arbitrary one imposed by the EU. The deadline is not arbitrary. There are two ways of adopting these regulations. One is to adopt them within three months, which we are doing, but I accept that there is an alternative approach. One can adopt the regulations later, as happens in some cases. However, the difference with this is that if we leave the three months lapse and come in later, as Deputy Ó Snodaigh suggested, we would be in the unusual and invidious position of being the only country in the EU without documentation to this standard. At a time when we hold the Presidency of the EU we would be the country most vulnerable to members of al-Qaeda or another terrorist organisation coming in on forged documentation, as Deputy Power said. Not to adopt this measure would be inappropriate, but it would be doubly inappropriate not to do so at a time when we hold the Presidency. My information is that this is not the first time this documentation has been available for scrutiny by the Oireachtas. Under the system whereby EU regulations are available to the relevant Oireachtas committees, there has already been some discussion of or at least some sight of the documentation. The EU citizens passport proposal has not yet been tabled and is primarily a matter for the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred to the protection of people. We must balance that protection and look to the protection of our own citizens, as Deputy Power said, which is one of the fundamental reasons we are moving towards this position. We are not doing so on our own initiative but due to demand across the EU. If one looks at the minutes of the various Council meetings one will see there is a great deal of pressure coming from countries whose record on human rights could be described by independent observers as being superior to ours. Such states are among those putting on the pressure in this regard.
There are data protection safeguards built into the regulations, three of which have been in place for more than a year. Two regulations are new but, as I said, those two new regulations arose because of sustained, relentless pressure at EU level.
Senator Terry asked about the financial implications. The exact implications have not been worked out yet but I understand that they will be slight and I can get more information for the Senator on that. She also asked for figures on the number of people trying to enter the EU on forged documents but to the best of my knowledge no cross-European figures have been compiled on that. When visas are refused in Ireland in many cases it is because the documentation is inadequate or wrong. In 2000 there were 17,219 visas approved and 7,115 refused. In 2001, 22,654 were approved and 10,215 refused. In 2002 there were 23,386 approved and 14,615 refused. The latest statistics for 2003 go to the end of October and show 22,891 approvals and 17,028 refused. One can see the number of refusals relative to approvals has been growing and there are good reasons for that. The experience is probably the same in other EU countries, which may be the reason for pressure coming on to harmonise the system, with one form of visa and residency documentation throughout the EU. I hope that addresses the points raised.
There is quite a lot in the responses of the Minister of State and other Deputies. I do not like my position or that of my party to be represented by the equation of the protection of human rights with supporting international terrorism. That is not the case. I asked for a longer debate on this in order to deal with the workings as there are matters not covered in the documentation. These measures will probably do nothing to stop the trafficking. A national identity card in the US never stopped this, and people have never stopped crossing the Mexico-US border. People may be found out earlier and sent back but those involved in the various tragedies mentioned by Deputies were determined to get here. Human traffickers abused them and that has to be stopped, though it will not happen within the EU. People will still try to get to Ireland and other EU countries, which raises questions as to where the EU focus should be. Should a fortress Europe be created, which tells outsiders they cannot come in, or should we deal with the problems and reasons people are trying to reach our shores? These are issues of inequality.
The Minister of State mentioned forged documents, but these documents are no different. If the technology is there they will also be forged in time, used and abused just as Oliver North and others abused Irish passports. Passports and visas have been and will be abused and this will not prevent Deputy Power's fears coming true.
It is interesting that there are no statistics on forged documents, as usually there are statistics outlining why regulations are being changed, with figures given on the numbers of people——
When it comes to smuggling people, it is an insidious activity and those involved do not sign up to say they smuggled in 50 people this week.
I am speaking about those who are caught trying to get in, not the human traffickers.
That is what this is about.
I am speaking about those with forged documents. The Minister of State said 17,000 people had been refused because their documents were not adequate.
In many cases they are refused because the documents are not adequate.
Documents not being adequate could mean applicants may not have passports or that application forms are not filled out properly. A huge range of issues is involved here.
The strategic committee on immigration, frontiers and asylum examined the proposals on 17 and 18 November 2003 and general agreement was reached on the text with the exception of one delegation maintaining a reservation about the proposals. This was in relation to Regulation 1683/95, laying down a uniform format for visas. What delegation was this and what was the nature of its reservation?
Also, Denmark, with some forethought, gave itself six months to pass these regulations and we have given ourselves three months. Perhaps we should have joined with the Danes on this. There are questions marks about the fingerprint and photograph requirements. This does not say whether the photograph is digital or not; it merely states "photograph". It can be stored digitally, but is it digital in the first place? This is open to major abuse.
There are concerns that only two fingerprints are called for but experts discussing this have called for all ten fingerprints to be taken, as there are then fewer margins for error. The regulations call for two prints, so there will be major mistakes. The prints will be stored on a contact-less chip, but chips are open to being corrupted, particularly if placed near a magnet. If a person travels a long way and their visa comes into contact with a magnet or an electrical field then that visa may not be acceptable. Cost is another issue——
This system is not going to be the failure to the extent Deputy Ó Snodaigh believes but if it does, what are his alternatives, which will spare us this grief?
I have suggested that the EU and the western world in general, rather than creating fortresses, should tackle poverty and inequality in the world.
We are talking about ordinary people having confidence in Irish passports.
There is no confidence in Irish passports since Oliver North ran amok with them in Iran.
That is why we have to tighten this up.
Yes. I have pointed out that these documents will be open to abuse and I pointed out two ways in which that can happen, with digital photographs as one example. It does not matter what documentation one has, if there are rogue governments supporting terrorism, they will be able to produce documentation which can be used at the point of entry or come in——
What alternatives does Deputy Ó Snodaigh have if this is going to fail so miserably?
We should ensure that people who come here have the proper documentation. That is the case at present. Those who land on our shores should be given the courtesy of a determination of their cases in the shortest possible time. If the Deputy wants a barney there are other matters——
We will deal with the issues arising in relation to this matter.
The other issue relates to the cost. Will our embassies be able to cover the cost of this measure and, if not, who will pay for the cost of issuing these visas? How many ports of entry will have equipment capable of reading the documents?
Also, there are two proposed regulations that did not exist previously. One states that no information will be stored on a chip unless it is covered by regulations in the annex or is mentioned in the travel document. The annex has not been published so we do not know what is in it, and I seek clarification on this point. Data protection is also a concern as in most countries those given the task of protecting data are under resourced and there are different standards among EU states in this area.
This system will be used to ensure people are prevented from coming to Europe. The latest information for the visa information system and Schengen information system suggests they have barred three quarters of a million people from coming to Europe. That arises under Article 96, a list of people who are barred from entry to the EU, while others are "red tagged" for surveillance. It may be correct to put them under surveillance but how do we know? Some may be travelling to protest at the policies of international organisations.
Following the adoption of the three regulations, member states continue to seek further enhancement of security features. If these measures are passed what will be the next regulations? The Minister of State addressed one aspect of this when I raised it earlier, but what regulations will be introduced in the future? One problem is the fact that we are standardising documents while we do not have standardised judicial systems - not that I want that - standardised human rights provisions or standardised immigration policies across the EU. I cannot see how this is going to work.
The Minister, DeputyMcDowell, has told us in the past that there have been significant increases in staffing to process applications. What about staff to process this measure, as obviously it will be labour intensive? Has the Department made provision to deal with this?
I take Deputy Hoctor's point.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh's alternative is to solve world poverty, which we will not do this evening. He said this would not stop human trafficking, which has not been stopped in the US. Of course trafficking has not stopped in the US, and this measure of itself will not stop it. This is only one measure and all the measures, cumulatively, will not stop human trafficking. The figures will be there for human trafficking because big money is involved and people will try it but we must try to make the system as secure as possible. One can get statistics on those who are apprehended but human nature is human nature. We are part of the European Committee on Justice and Home Affairs and the other countries are even more anxious than us to move in this direction, with safeguards in documents combating falsification and forgery to make it less easy for people to get in under false pretences. That is what this is about.
This is not a unilateral step by the Irish Government. No matter how long we debate this, if we alter these documents or make them less secure than is proposed, we will be in the invidious position of being the only member state which has not reached that measure of legal protection against possible illegal entry. We would be less protected at a time when we hold the EU Presidency, and I cannot see the logic of that.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh mentioned forgers and traffickers having the technology to get round the system. It is mind-boggling to suggest that because they have technology we should not use what technology is there to make the system as foolproof as possible. One might as well say we will give no more technological resources to the gardai because criminals are getting more sophisticated.
On a more serious note, there is provision in the regulations to keep adapting and changing the technical format of the documents to take account of new technological realities and whatever the other side, so to speak, are up to. Deputy Ó Snodaigh will have noticed this from his research. On the photograph, I understand the photo must be digital; it will be biometric. Only two fingerprints are taken because, as a result of a discussion that preceded the proposal, it was felt to be less intrusive in terms of human rights. I emphasise that these proposals arose as matters of general agreement in the Justice and Home Affairs Council.
Deputy Ó Snodaigh also asked about the annex that was not published. The reason is that the annex is in the previous regulation that is amended by this proposal. On other material being changed or harmonised, I cannot predict the future. It is quite possible.
I did not expect the Minister of State to predict the future. I meant proposals in the near future.
Sorry, there are no proposals at present.
On Senator Terry's earlier question, I have a breakdown for different years of the reasons for refusals. In the present year to date, there were 1,375 refusals for people not in possession of a valid passport or relevant document. In 2002 the corresponding figure was 2,099 and in 2001 it was 2,660.
