JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS debate -
Wednesday, 29 Jun 2005

European Migration Funds: Motions.

Chairman

I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and his officials to the meeting, the purpose of which is to consider three motions referred by both Houses to the joint committee. The motions, as referred by the Dáil, read as follows:

That Dáil Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option or discretion, provided by Article 3 of the fourth Protocol set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam, to notify the President of the Council that it wishes to take part in the adoption and application of the following proposed measure:

a proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council establishing the European Return Fund for the period 2008-2013 as part of the General programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows',

a copy of which proposed measure was laid before Dáil Éireann on 3rd June, 2005.

That Dáil Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option or discretion, provided by Article 3 of the fourth Protocol set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam, to notify the President of the Council that it wishes to take part in the adoption and application of the following proposed measure:

a proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2008-2013 as part of the General programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows',

a copy of which proposed measure was laid before Dáil Éireann on 3rd June, 2005.

That Dáil Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option or discretion, provided by Article 3 of the fourth Protocol set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam, to notify the President of the Council that it wishes to take part in the adoption and application of the following proposed measure:

a proposal for a Council Decision establishing the European Fund for the Integration of Third-county nationals for the period 2007-2013 as part of the General programme ‘Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows',

a copy of which proposed measure was laid before Dáil Éireann on 3rd June, 2005.

The joint committee will send messages to the Dáil and Seanad in the manner prescribed in Standing Order 85 and Standing Order 67, respectively, no later than 1 July. Members have been circulated with information provided by the Minister.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy McDowell)

I thank committee members for making time available today to discuss these motions which relate to three proposals for Council decisions in respect of EU funding instruments, namely, phase three of the European Refugee Fund, a European fund for the integration of third country nationals and a European Return Fund. The European Integration Fund covers the period 2007 to 2013 while the other two relate to the years 2008 to 2013. These proposals are covered by Title IV of the EC treaty.

As the joint committee is aware, under Article 3 of the fourth protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty, the State has three months from the date a proposal is sent to the Council to notify the President of the Council that it wishes to take part in its adoption and application. As most of the three month period in respect of these instruments will elapse during the forthcoming recess of both Houses of the Oireachtas, I am seeking the approval of both Houses at this stage to exercise the relevant options as required under Article 29.4.6° of the Constitution.

I will clarify the background to the proposals. The three instruments are part of a series of four which relate to the framework programme for solidarity and management of migration flows which arise from communications sent by the Commission to the Council in 2004 on the policy context for future financial interventions. Building on the results of the 1999 Tampere programme, in November 2004 the European Council adopted a multi-annual programme called the Hague programme on strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union. Among the objectives set out in the programme are the further development of common migration and asylum policies and the establishment of an integrated management system for controls at the European Union's external borders.

The adoption of the Hague programme has coincided with the preparation of the Commission's proposals for the new financial perspectives or financial envelope for the EU budget which has allowed it to ensure coherence between the political priorities defined in the Hague programme and the financial instruments supporting their implementation in the period 2007 to 2013. In this regard, the Commission has proposed a framework programme for solidarity and management of migration flows aimed at addressing the financial burden arising from the integrated management of the European Union's external border and fthe implementation of common policies on asylum and migration.

A figure of some €5.86 billion has been proposed by the Commission for the framework programme broken down into the four funds as follows: European Refugee Fund — Phase 3, €1.1 billion; European Integration Fund, €1.7 billion; European Return Fund, €750 million; and the European Borders Fund, in respect of which we are not exercising an option, €2.15 billion. The three proposals before the joint committee will provide the legal basis for the allocation of the moneys involved between member states.

For the information of the joint committee, the recent European Council failed to obtain agreement on the financial perspectives package at its meeting on 16 and 17 June which, by all accounts, was tough and acrimonious. The Council requested the incoming British Presidency to advance discussions with a view to resolving all the elements necessary for achieving overall agreement as soon as possible.

I will now deal briefly with each of the three proposals and say why they should be supported. The European Refugee Fund, ERF, was established in September 2000 for the period 2000 to 2004, its purpose being, inter alia, to support member states in receiving asylum seekers, refugees and displaced persons. The fund supports projects in the area of reception such as the provision of reception facilities, integration and voluntary return. Member state allocations were made on an annual basis, based primarily on the numbers of asylum seekers and refugees arriving in a particular state. Ireland has been allocated some €4.2 million from the first phase of the ERF. Overall, some €216 million was allocated EU-wide. The responsible authority for the administration of the fund in Ireland is the Reception and Integration Agency.

The second phase of the fund which covers the period 2005 to 2010 was established in December 2004 following successful negotiations during Ireland's Presidency of the European Union. Some €185 million has been allocated for the second phase which represents the Commission's total contribution to actions co-financed in member states. Ireland's share of this allocation for 2005 is €1.2 million. The Council decision to establish a third phase of the fund will, if agreed, see the decision establishing the second phase repealed with effect from 1 January 2008.

The second phase of the fund aims to build on the experiences and successes of the first phase following a period of exhaustive consultation by the Commission with all relevant parties involved with the fund, including member states. A number of significant changes were incorporated into the decision establishing ERF 2 enabling a more strategic approach to the use of the fund and ensuring a bias towards obtaining as much added value as possible at both national and EU level.

The proposal for a third phase of the ERF, one of the instruments before the joint committee, is almost identical to the second phase in its framework and scope. A proposal for a third phase has been brought forward now principally to ensure the ERF can form part of the general programme on solidarity and management of migration flows proposed under the new EU financial perspectives.

There are three differences between the Commission's proposal for a third phase of the fund and the Council decision which established the second phase. These are the duration of the fund, from 1 January 2008 until 31 December 2013; the level of EU funds allocated — the proposed allocation for the third phase of the fund being €1.184 billion — and the fact that the fund can no longer be used to co-finance actions aimed at the repatriation of asylum seekers because they will be dealt with separately through the European Return Fund. Funding is allocated on the basis of co-financing between the European Union and member states, with up to 50% of project costs being met from the fund.

During the first phase of the ERF, funding has gone to a wide range of organisations, including well established groups such as the Irish Refugee Council as well as smaller ethnic minority-led organisations such as the African Refugee Network and African Solidarity Centre. The State's allocation was awarded to 65 projects. Some €1.3 million was awarded to 21 projects under the reception measure, €2.4 million to 40 projects under the integration measure and €400,000 to four projects under the voluntary return measure.

Individual awards ranged from €3,000 to €150,000, the latter being in respect of the setting up of a care and rehabilitation centre for survivors of torture by the Spiritan Asylum Seeker Initiative, SPIRASI, on Dublin's North Circular Road. That the majority of projects funded during the first phase of the ERF were integration projects rather than projects in the field of reception reflects the fact that the reception needs of asylum seekers such as accommodation, food and health care are already comprehensively provided for by the Government's policy of direct provision.

Typical actions which have been funded include providing care and rehabilitation for asylum seekers who have been victims of violence, rape and torture or who may be traumatised having come from a region of conflict; the provision of drop-in centres to provide information and support for asylum seekers at a local community level; and co-ordination of integration services through links with smaller organisations.

The European fund for the integration of third country nationals is a new fund aimed at supporting the efforts of member states in enabling third country nationals to settle and take part in all aspects of European society. It arises from the Hague programme in which the Council called for greater co-ordination of national integration policies. It will contribute to the development of national integration strategies for third country nationals which take into account the basic principles for immigrant integration policy in the European Union as agreed by the Council on 19 November 2004.

The specific objectives of the fund are set out in Article 3 and will facilitate the organisation and implementation of admission procedures, introduction programmes and activities for third country nationals; increase the civic, cultural and political participation of third country nationals in the host society; and strengthen the ability of the host society to adjust to increasing diversity. The target group will include third country nationals who have obtained an authorisation issued by the authorities of a member state to stay legally on its territory, be it for employment, self-employment, family reunification or any other purpose set out in national law. The decision establishes the fund for the period from 2007 to 2013.

The proposed allocation for the fund is €1.7 billion. Each member state will receive a fixed amount of €300,000 from the fund's annual allocation. The new member states and member states which accede to the European Union during the period 2007 to 2013 will receive a fixed amount of €500,000 per annum. Co-funding to a maximum of 50% will be available.

The remainder of the available annual resources will be broken down between member states on the basis of 40% in proportion to the average of the total number of legally residing third country nationals in member states in the previous three years, and 60% in proportion to the number of third country nationals who have obtained an authorisation issued by the authorities of a member state to reside legally on its territory in the previous three years.

Detailed information on actions eligible for support is outlined in Article 4 of the proposal. Included among the activities are preparation of third country nationals admitted for integration purposes into the host society in a better way by supporting pre-travel measures such as information packages; developing and improving induction programmes for newly arrived third country nationals; building sustainable organisational structures for integration strategies and reinforcing the capacity to co-ordinate national integration strategies; and increasing the acceptance of the phenomena of migration and admission programmes in the host society through awareness-raising campaigns.

I will now turn to the third instrument, a proposal to establish a European Return Fund for the period 2008 to 2013. The European return fund relates to the return of third country nationals who do not fulfil the conditions of entry to, presence in or residence on the territory of the European Union. The general objective of the fund is to support the efforts made by member states to improve the management of return in all its dimensions, including voluntary and forced returns, through the use of the concept of integrated management. Particular emphasis is laid on the sustainability of return and integration opportunities for returnees.

The proposed fund has three specific objectives. The first objective is the introduction and improvement of the organisation and implementation of integrated return management by member states. Eligible actions here include the establishment or improvement of stable and lasting co-operation with the countries to which the member states wish to return non-nationals illegally residing on their territory. This could, for example, result in travel documents being more easily acquired to enable returns to take place. The second objective of the fund is the enhancement of co-operation between member states in the framework of integrated return management and its implementation. Eligible actions here include the design of joint integrated return plans and their implementation, exchange of information and advice in returning vulnerable groups and seminars on best practice and so forth. The third objective of the fund is the promotion and effective return of common standards on return.

Funding is €0.759 billion and the level of co-financing will be set at 50%. Each member state will receive a minimum of €300,000 from the fund's annual allocation, the ten accession states will receive a minimum of €500,000 and the remainder will be divided as follows: 70% in proportion to the total number of third country nationals illegally residing or having illegally resided in the territory of a member state and who are subject to a return decision under national and Community law over the previous three years and 30% in proportion to the number of third country nationals who have left the member state following an administrative or judicial order to leave, undertaken voluntarily or otherwise, over the previous three years.

We do not have to wait until 2008 to get a clear picture of how the fund will work. This is because, during our presidency, the Council of Ministers approved under its existing budgetary arrangements a sum of €30 million for what it termed preparatory actions for the new return fund. A total of €15 million will be allocated in the period 2006 to 2007 and the other half of the funding will be allocated in the period 2007 to 2008. Projects will begin in early 2006 and will last for 18 months. The operation of the return fund will be based on an evaluation of the results of the preparatory actions. I will leave the rest of my presentation and allow members to ask questions about it.

Deputy Costello

I thank the Minister for his presentation. Looking at the motion before the committee and what the Minister has outlined, it is quite difficult to get a grasp of what exactly it means in practice. The basic funds and strategy in terms of reception, integration, voluntary return and European borders are straightforward concepts. However, there is no indication as to what happened in the ERF 1 and the ERF 2, what distribution took place with regard to Ireland, how it functioned and whether the first three headings were covered. European borders is a new heading which is now getting the lion's share of the money. I would like to see some statistical information as to how the money was spent over previous years. We are now talking about an ongoing situation from 2008 to 2013 over the next five years for EU member states. Perhaps the Minister could provide us with some statistical information about what happened previously under the various headings we are discussing, the amount of money granted to this country and other countries, the real thrust of where immigration and asylum seeking is coming from, which countries are bearing the brunt of it and how the money is being spent.

For example, there would be considerable criticism with regard to integration policy. What European funding has been available for Ireland to develop integration objectives and how has this money been spent? We are talking about what appears to be largely matching funds. Whatever projects we establish, the European Union will match that with 50% of the funding. How will this work out? Are we talking about voluntary projects, community projects, State projects and combination projects? I would like to see a much greater statistical breakdown of where we are at the present time.

I have a query with regard to the reception of asylum seekers and European funding under these headings. It is a considerable amount of funding, with €1.183 billion allocated to reception. Has Ireland previously received funding for the provision of reception facilities or must the State bear the brunt of the capital cost of purchasing and renting reception centres? If we did receive EU funding, are we answerable in any way to a European comptroller and auditor general for quality of spending in the same way our own Comptroller and Auditor General looks into the matter?

We have raised many questions recently about the fact that a number of premises have been purchased and there are question marks about the manner in which the purchases took place. The purchase of Broc House in the Minister's constituency has been raised. Broc House was purchased over four years ago and has lain idle for various reasons, including legal reasons. It is now available for use because all the legal objections have been overcome, yet the Minister still does not feel that it is fit to be used as an asylum seekers' centre. Has European money played any part in the purchase of this centre? The Parnell West Hotel, purchased some years, is a reception centre which has been declared unsafe on health and safety grounds and closed down. Did the European Union play any role with regard to this centre in the past? Will the European Union finance the provision of reception centres? Are we talking about capital expenditure and current expenditure? It seems that the issue of asylum seekers has much to do with the provision of reception centres and the costs incurred by such provision.

I would like some clarification regarding the voluntary return of refugees. Does it include deportations? Does it extend to assisted deportations? Deportations to Nigeria, Romania or the Gambia, most of which cost a considerable amount of money, are carried out on a charter basis and do not seem to operate with much European Union co-operation. Are they assisted and will they be assisted with the new fund? Is this part of the policy? Has there been any agreement? Is there proposed co-operation regarding deportations under this new motion and will this funding or another fund be used for that purpose?

Countries who will be joining the European Union from 2007 will receive a flat rate of €500,000 per annum. This amount will be not be of major assistance to them but I presume that it will be open to further increase subsequently. This is a bit like the €1,000 that has been put into our justice budget for the last number of years for the ombudsman commission but which has not been used so far because we have not got around to establishing it. It may be around the corner. The Minister has introduced proposals with regard to immigration and residency. How does the Minister envisage his new proposals linking with what is occurring in Europe? Are other member states putting proper residency and immigration policies in place on a statutory basis? Have we reached a situation whereby Europe can develop common statutory principles and can we expect any forthcoming statutory proposals similar to those the Minister outlined in his recently issued documentation?

We are discussing a sizable amount of money, €5,886.3 million, that will be spent on the areas of asylum seekers and refugee reception, integration and voluntary return over the next five years. The lion's share will be spent on protecting the borders. It is of concern that most of the money will be spent on protective and negative uses, that is to say, keeping asylum seekers out and borders intact without spending money on integration or on developing a policy that would recognise the fact that there are many economic migrants. In a broader scale, there is a need to examine what is happening elsewhere in the world and whether we can be more proactive than reactive about the perceived "threat" of migration and asylum seekers.

There is real human misery and suffering in the world. Many people find it difficult to make a living, which is the cause of vast movements of people. We must examine this issue in the context of the countries from which people traditionally come to our shores. Can the European Union agree a quota so that rather than "firefighting" all of the time, we would generously produce a proactive policy to facilitate people coming to our shores?

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

My colleague has addressed most of the detailed areas but I wish to raise three issues. First, I welcome the Minister's decision to come before the committee to discuss the affairs of the Reception and Integration Agency, a number of which are troubling. I will reserve my comments on the matter until that meeting.

Second, is the Minister satisfied with the amount of co-operation in the areas of asylum and migration management at the level of the European Union? There has been some progress but a substantial body of work remains to be done in the context of the Hague programme. What further steps could be taken to enhance co-operation among member states on asylum and migration management? Third, we have been excluded from the European border fund because we are not one of the Schengen Agreement countries. However, we are part of another free movement area, namely, the common passport area with the United Kingdom. Until it joins the Schengen Agreement, there is no question of Ireland doing so, which is a practical outcome of the UK's decision.

Taking the common passport area into account, one of the issues I have been examining is the development of the UK's ID card legislation, which finished Second Stage in the House of Commons last night. Will there be consequences for Ireland from the introduction of this ID card? Within the ambit of our current discussion, everyone moving through the area, including migrants, will be affected by these cards. What is the Minister's reaction to the British legislation's passage through Second Stage and its possible impact on us, bearing in mind the flow of people between the two islands and between North and South?

Deputy F. McGrath

I welcome the Minister and his officials. Will the main beneficiaries of this funding be EU citizens rather than asylum seekers or their families? A high percentage of the proposed financing will be spent on services and on the people providing them. This does not necessarily mean that asylum seekers and their families will benefit economically in significant ways. The public impression in Ireland and elsewhere is that asylum seekers and the asylum system are suddenly costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of euro but the majority of the beneficiaries of the money are our own citizens who are involved in providing accommodation and are at work in the bureaucracy.

The Minister referred to the European Fund for the Integration of Third Country Nationals. The word "integration" is of concern. Rather than applying the assimilation scenario in respect of third country nationals, the EU should take an inclusive approach. For many people, integration means that when one arrives in a host state, one must knuckle in, settle down and adopt new ways. Inclusion means that one can work in the system but respect and accommodate differences also.

The European Refugee Fund supports the project areas of reception, integration and voluntary return. I support any spending on the area of reception or assistance and commend the people directly involved in the areas of housing and health care. Is the phrase "voluntary return", which includes training assistance towards the resettlement in a country of origin, code for deportation?

The sections on page five address typical actions in providing care and rehabilitation for asylum seekers who have been victims of violence, rape and torture or who may be traumatised having come from a region of conflict. This is a noble aspiration and I commend the proposals. Has the Minister accepted that this is the reality for many asylum seekers and that he should withdraw his outdated remarks of several weeks ago about "cock and bull stories at airports"? The EU accepts the reality I outlined. I would welcome a change of heart on the Minister's part.

The section dealing with the European return fund is classic bureaucratic language. Basically, it means kicking people out of the country and deporting them home. I question the use of language, such as the phrases "through the use of the concept of integrated management" and "involuntary enforced returns". Where the section refers to the implementation of "integrated return management by member states", does the Minister mean people being booted out of the country? Can we also bury the myth which sadly exists in Irish society that many people, asylum seekers and others coming to Ireland, are abusing the system?

Deputy Costello touched on the economic migrants. Emigration is a reality and it can bring positive effects to countries. This country has a history of emigration. Some of us have many relations in America and England who went there in the 1950s when they were very poor. The history of emigrants going to wealthy countries is a positive story, one of progressive economic development, of people coming from very poor backgrounds and rising to the top in the host nation.

On the broader issue of immigration, will the Minister accept that, sadly, in many spheres of Irish society the word "immigration" is negative. I know from my clinics and walkabouts that when one mentions "these people", and stands by them, it is not very politically correct. Will the Minister stand with the immigrants in this debate?

Senator J. Walsh

I welcome the Minister and his officials and I welcome the general thrust of what has been advanced. It is a positive contribution towards the management of this area, which is relatively new to us. We have been managing the asylum seeker issue quite well. I do not fully subscribe to the idea that we should have an open door policy for economic migrants. That would undermine our economy and would not be in the interests of anyone, including those seeking entry to Ireland on a permanent basis. We need quotas. I agree that immigrants have a valuable role and currently make a valuable contribution to the economy.

Regarding the European return fund, my note says that it includes, as all three funds do, an audit requirement based on the experience of the states. My question relates to non-nationals working through agencies, specifically to those operated by their own compatriots. Unfortunately, in some such instances which have been recounted to me, a system operates whereby people are being engaged under false identities. There is a scam in that area which needs to be looked at. Can the return fund address the issue? It is unfair to non-nationals seeking employment. I understand that some of them receive less than the designated wage for certain positions. Some non-nationals have complained to me about the manipulation and control taking place. We need to tackle the issue. It is creating a culture which we should be discouraging among people who are probably coming to Ireland to establish, in time, their own citizenship as members of Irish society. Only a small number of people may be involved, but damage is being done.

Deputy McDowell

I will give Deputy Costello all the figures as he missed the first part of my presentation in which I gave figures regarding the funds to date. Some €1.23 million was spent on 21 projects in the reception area, €2.4 million on 40 projects in the integration area and €0.4 million on four projects on voluntary return. I can give Deputy Costello a full list of all the projects assisted as that list is available in the Department.

All of the money is allocated on a co-funding basis with voluntary groups and it is fully audited. It has nothing to do with the provision of mainstream asylum-seeking accommodation in Ireland by RIA, the Reception and Integration Agency. Our acquisition of premises has nothing to do with European funds, so that dimension does not arise.

Deputy Costello expressed some scepticism about the figures of €300,000 or €500,000, but if one looks for example at the figure of €0.75 billion on the return fund, or €1.18 billion on the integration fund, then if one divides it by six, the number of years involved, one arrives at figures of €186 million and €127 million respectively. If one divides that between 25 member states, one gets an average spend of €6.5 million and €5 million respectively among the member states. The minimum figures of which we were speaking, €300,000 and €500,000, are absolutely guaranteed, but on average it should work out between the various member states, dependent on their flows, that while some will get more and others less, this is the order of magnitude involved.

Those are the ballpark figures for the budgets of which we are speaking. Comparing Ireland's spend on asylum seeking, for instance, not to mention integration measures generally, this is a very small fraction. If Ireland were to get average contributions in this area, that would be a tiny fraction of the €370 million that we spend per annum in these areas. Let nobody think that we are being hugely funded by Europe in this area or that the burden of cost of dealing with these issues is not a major one for the Irish taxpayer.

I will send Deputy Costello a breakdown of the individual projects assisted. I reiterate that European funding is not used to buy hostel accommodation. In my constituency, Broc House is empty as a result of litigation. That litigation has now concluded and I understand that Broc House is being offered to the health board, probably to be used as a step-down facility for St. Vincent's Hospital. Other premises in my constituency have been acquired on a short-term basis, including the former Jesuit university residence, Hatch Hall.

Deputy Costello

Well away from the residents.

Deputy McDowell

The Deputy must be joking. It is closer to my house than is Broc House. In case the Deputy is implying that we are choosy in Dublin South-East about those we live with, one of the largest asylum-seeker accommodation centres in my own area was the length of a football pitch away from my house. I do not preach to others what I do not accept for myself. I assure the Deputy there was never any problem or adverse reaction in our area. There is a constant sub-text that the burghers of Dublin South-East are unreasonable and unpleasant people. That is wholly untrue.

Deputy Costello

I would never suggest that. Regarding——

Deputy McDowell

The Deputy should just listen to me, instead of blathering at this stage.

Deputy Costello

Broc House has been idle for four years.

Deputy McDowell

There is more negative reaction on this issue in the Deputy's constituency than in mine. It is a constant theme that Dublin South-East has no asylum seekers. That is not true. There is also less whingeing about the issue by public representatives than in Deputy Costello's neck of the woods. We do not continue making speeches about the issue.

Deputy Costello

I will tell the Taoiseach that.

Deputy F. McGrath

Does the Minister have a problem with northsiders?

Deputy McDowell

No. I have no problem at all with northsiders.

Deputy Costello

When Broc House became available, the Minister had already rented Hatch Hall.

Deputy McDowell

Yes, because Hatch Hall was suitable while Broc House would have required——

Deputy Costello

It was——

Deputy McDowell

The Deputy should listen to me. Broc House would have required another €1 million spent on it and would not have been suitable. Hatch Hall is much more suitable.

Deputy Costello

The health board will have to spend €1 million on it.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I suggest we leave aside these matters for discussion at the special meeting of the committee.

Deputy McDowell

Deputy Jim O'Keeffe mentioned that we will have a meeting with RIA in attendance and I am glad of that. Regarding the particular issues mentioned by the Deputy, I have had them investigated and the Garda is actively investigating one incident. I am grateful to the Deputy for bringing that material to my attention and I assure him it is not being ignored. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe mentioned the question of the common travel area between Ireland and the UK and the implications of the ID card for it. Ireland and the UK have a common travel area. Both countries are not full members of the Schengen zone and reserve the right to control entry in and out of their territories on a common co-operative and to have controls on their territories. There are good sound reasons for this. It is not because we are foot-dragging Europeans, rather it is because we have a totally different system from the Europeans.

If a person goes to live in any European member state, he or she must register with agencies such as the local prefecture and the local police. The amount of paperwork involved in establishing residence in a European member state is enormous. There is virtually none of that paperwork involved when an EU national comes to Ireland. The Irish State is, generally speaking, oblivious as to whether an EU national lives in Ireland. There is practically nothing on our radar screen. This is because we have a common law system, which means we do not have a highly regularised State awareness of who is in or out of the State. The Garda Síochána does not have a list of everybody who lives in every house. It has the electoral register, which may or may not be accurate but it does not know where every child in Ireland is and does not have a list of every child who lives on every street. In many European countries, the fact that a child lives at a particular address is registered and filed away. There may be merit to their systems and there may be merit to our system but we have a very liberal, free-wheeling approach. Once a person enters Ireland legally, the State does not care about him or her and does not interfere with him or her as long he or she does not come to its notice.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

My question relates to the implications for that system of the possible introduction of ID cards in the UK.

Deputy McDowell

The point I am making is that our non-involvement in the Schengen zone derives from a completely different system. Our view is that once a person gets into Ireland, the State does not keep asking him or her where he or she is or what he or she is doing. Our system is like an egg; once a person gets through the shell, it is soft going after that.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

It covers the two islands.

Deputy McDowell

Yes, it does because it is a co-operative arrangement. If people at Dublin Airport think a person is travelling on to Great Britain as an illegal migrant, they will refuse him or her transit at the airport. They will make a joint decision for the two jurisdictions.

There would be significant implications for the common travel area if ID cards were introduced by the British Parliament. We are monitoring what is happening in Great Britain very carefully. As members are aware, the British Home Secretary got his proposal through the House of Commons on a very narrow majority last night.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

It went through its second reading.

Deputy McDowell

The proposal got through on a fairly narrow basis. There are very significant issues involved, such as cost, the use of the card, the privacy implications of the card and the broader philosophical position regarding the cards. The US, which is under possibly greater threat from international terrorism and international migratory flows than other countries, does not have a system of ID cards. The US is like most common law countries — Australia, New Zealand, Canada — where residents do not possess identity cards they are required to produce whenever a police constable or patrolman asks them to do so.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

People say the ID card scheme has gone through its second reading in the House of Commons last night. I know there are objections to it and rebels within the Labour party, but presupposing it does go through, does the Minister consider we will be almost forced to follow suit?

Deputy McDowell

My personal preference, and I have never pretended otherwise, is against ID cards.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

What would happen in a new situation?

Deputy McDowell

If ID cards were introduced in the UK, we would be forced to examine the situation. There are all kinds of obvious implications like the North-South dimension. Will Irish citizens be required to have or carry ID cards if they cross the Border? Will somebody who works in Omagh four days per week and lives in Lifford two days per week be required to have an ID card to reside in the UK? These are serious matters and issues such as whether the nationalist population in Northern Ireland want to have UK ID cards, whether the Irish State would provide them with alternative cards and whether the two systems would be integrated are ones where considerable discussion and thinking have yet to be done.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

It is time to do some thinking.

Deputy McDowell

I am thinking about the issue.

Chairman

Could the Minister answer the questions of the other members?

Deputy McDowell

I listened to Deputy Finian McGrath's points and I think the problem with his thinking is that he constantly confuses migration and asylum seeking. I do not think it is accidental. I strongly support migration and the Irish State has received a very significant migratory flow, probably the highest per capita migratory flow in any state in the EU since its enlargement. Between 60,000 and 80,000 EU nationals have come to work in Ireland in the past 14 months. They are contributing hugely to our wealth. People also come from outside the EU to work in Ireland. I believe that, if one looks at the very solid state of our economy, quite apart from the question of welcoming diversity, which I do, I also welcome the prosperity these people are bringing to all of us. We might be in a very different position if they were not here and I think this should be recognised.

I make the point again to Deputy McGrath that this has nothing to do with asylum seeking. Asylum seeking is not for the purpose of working in Ireland; it is based on the 1951 Geneva Convention.

Deputy F. McGrath

People get labelled.

Deputy McDowell

There is a radical distinction between the two categories.

Deputy F. McGrath

I know there is but people get labelled.

Deputy McDowell

I do not think the Deputy ever refers to the distinction. He uses the two terms very interchangeably and suggests that measures taken to prevent the abuse of the asylum system are anti-immigrant. Nothing could be further from the truth. We cannot have a situation where anybody can come to Ireland as an economic migrant and walk to the very top of the queue simply by claiming he or she is being persecuted. If we allowed that situation to arise, we would have absolute chaos because nobody would ever bother asking for a work permit or applying for a visa to come to work in Ireland if the de facto situation was that all one had to do was present oneself at the office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and make a claim of being persecuted and one would get to the top of the queue and walk into the Irish economy. This will never happen. It must be understood that some of the commentators on this issue are inclined to deliberately conflate the two and say that because economic migration is welcomed, with which I agree, it is wrong to resist abuse of the asylum process, which is a pernicious thing that is constantly used by those people who will not draw a radical distinction between the two.

Deputy McGrath asked me whether I would vary and withdraw what I said previously at this committee on the subject of asylum seeking. The answer is no. I have spent what spare time I have in the past few days yet again going through files with a view to signing deportation orders. The sad pattern is that a very considerable portion of the stories and accounts given by people are frankly incredible. By nationality, the picture is more or less right across the board. The number of Nigerian asylum seekers who came to Ireland and who claimed they had no travel documents but also claimed they had flown from Nigeria to Europe as part of getting here was very significant. A total of 88% of the 1,174 Nigerian asylum seekers in the period from May 2004 to May 2005 — this last year — claimed to have travelled by air and claimed to have no travel documents. This is unacceptable to me. I am not prepared to accept the proposition that one can fly to Europe without any travel documents, especially when there is no direct flight from Nigeria to Ireland. One could not spirit oneself aboard a flight from Lagos. One would obviously have to reach Great Britain first but one does not get to Great Britain from Nigeria with a beer mat in one's breast pocket. People can only get to Great Britain with passports but suddenly all these passports disappear when they arrive in Ireland. The reason is there is a constant pattern of destruction or concealment of travel documents with a view to preventing the Irish authorities from looking at a person's travel history in order that they have to accept the story that the person in question arrived in Ireland by means about which he or she is not clear. The intention is to ensure the host country will then take responsibility for him or her under the Geneva Convention. Those are the facts, not fantasies.

Deputy F. McGrath

What is the percentage?

Deputy McDowell

Of the 1,174 Nigerian nationals who came to Ireland last year without travel documents, 88% said they had travelled by air for some part of the journey.

Deputy Costello

Would it be possible to check that information?

Deputy McDowell

The same story was given by 40% of Romanians, 100% of those coming from the Congo, 42% of those coming from the Ukraine and 33% of those coming from Moldova. It cannot be true, a fact to which we must face up. If we are being told untruths, there is no point in pretending in a rose-tinted haze that we are not. We are being codded.

Deputy Costello

Does the Minister propose further deportations to Romania, given that country will join the European Union in 2007?

Deputy McDowell

There are deportation flights to Romania. If I were to stop them, everyone would say Romania was joining the European Union in 2007 and that those who wished to go to Ireland might as well do so now. I am not prepared to take such action because there would be numerous implications. Anyone who is the subject of a deportation order cannot return to Ireland subsequently. I have to maintain some discipline; otherwise there would be a deluge. Obviously, at the moment of Romania's accession, I would have to look at all outstanding Romanian deportation orders and decide whether money should be spent enforcing them or whether I should take a more reasonable approach.

Senator J. Walsh

Is anything being done about rogue agencies?

Deputy McDowell

That issue falls to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, who is publishing proposals today with regard to protecting migrant workers.

Chairman

That concludes our discussion of the subject. Is it agreed there should be no further debate in the Dáil and Seanad? Agreed. Is the draft report agreed, subject to the insertion of details regarding attendance and contributors to the discussion? Agreed. I thank the Minister and his officials for attending.