JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS debate -
Wednesday, 14 Dec 2005

Asylum and Immigration: Motion.

Chairman

I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and his officials to this meeting, the purpose of which is to consider a motion referred by both Houses of the Oireachtas. The motion states:

That Dáil Éireann approve 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 on the establishment of a mutual information procedure concerning Member States' measures in the area of asylum and immigration,

a copy of which proposed measure was laid before Dáil Éireann on 14 November 2005.

Copies of the briefing note supplied by the Department have been distributed to members.

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

I thank the Chairman and members for making time available to discuss the motion on a proposal for a Council decision on the establishment of a mutual information procedure concerning member states' measures on asylum and immigration. The proposal is covered by Title IV of the EC treaty and the normal three-month deadline for the exercise of our treaty options, subject to the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas, applies.

I wish to clarify the background to this short proposal. It arises from conclusions of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, agreed in April 2005, which called on the Commission to bring forward the text before the committee. It is recognised that even with the introduction of the Amsterdam treaty, which enabled a large number of common measures on asylum and immigration to be adopted at EU level, member states continue to retain an important role in these key policy areas. With member states continually adopting new national measures on asylum and immigration that may impact on other member states or the Union as a whole, it is important that an information exchange network exists to enable details of such measures when made public nationally to be communicated speedily within the Union. It is for this reason that a proposal for an Internet-based electronic information exchange procedure between member states and the Commission has been brought forward.

Article 1 of the proposal sets out the scope of the proposal for a mutual information exchange procedure and provides for the exchange of views on such measures between member states and between national governments and the Commission. Article 2 sets out the types of asylum and immigration measures that should be communicated, which are those that have a potential to impact on other member states or on the Union as a whole. Such measures include draft legislation, to be notified at the latest at the time of submission for adoption to national parliaments, draft international agreements, to be notified at the latest at the time they are initialled, final decisions of courts or tribunals that apply to or interpret national law in the areas of asylum or immigration, to be notified at the time they are delivered or immediately thereafter, and administrative decisions on asylum and immigration, to be notified when they are adopted or immediately thereafter. Article 2 further provides that the Commission or a member state may request additional information concerning a measure which has been communicated through the network. The information must be provided within a deadline of two weeks.

Article 3 provides that any existing obligations to exchange information on legislation adopted under Article 63 of the EC treaty will be deemed to be fulfilled if communicated via the proposed network. The measure will help to avoid duplication in the communication of information.

Article 4 provides that the network will be Internet-based. The Commission will be responsible for its development and management and it will include appropriate measures to guarantee confidentiality.

Article 5 provides that the Commission may, on its own initiative or on the basis of a request from a member state, organise an exchange of views with member states' experts on particular national measures submitted to the network. The purpose of exchanges of views will be the identification of issues of common interest.

The Government believes that the State should participate in the adoption and application of the proposal because it covers the key policy areas, at national and EU levels, of asylum and immigration. It is a non-contentious proposal to address the enhancement of communication and co-operation between member states on significant policy developments and, as such, it will have a positive, knock-on effect on mutual confidence within the EU. Confidentiality is protected in the proposal because there is no obligation to publish details of initiatives until they are made public domestically. The proposal seeks to simplify existing information exchange obligations at EU level.

Continued enhancement of co-operation at EU level on asylum and immigration management is essential, particularly in the context of the Hague programme adopted by the Council in November 2004. Member states acting together have the capacity to achieve more successful outcomes than states acting entirely on their own in this area. While much has been achieved through comprehensive co-operation at EU level in the past five years under the Tampere programme, a substantial body of work has yet to be progressed in the context of the Hague programme. I hope the committee will support the proposal.

I will provide two examples of where the proposal would be relevant. Spain recently announced an amnesty for immigrants. EU member states have expressed the view that they should be informed of such matters before they become a fait accompli. The same could apply in respect of our Irish born children programme, under which 18,000 people have applied to remain in Ireland. We are seeking to ensure that all member states are made aware of decisions made by individual states that could have a significant immigration content for the European Union. I must stress, however, that member states have the right to decide these matters. It is entirely a matter for each national Government what migration policies it pursues. There is no EU competence, except in respect of EU citizens, to dictate migration policy for member states. While there is a degree of autonomy, basic solidarity requires that each member state keep others informed of what it is doing.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

This is a good week to discuss the programme in light of the controversy regarding information exchange in other areas. I would not expect, in the context of international matters, that other member states would be totally reliant on leaks from the Government.

On a more serious level, it makes sense to provide for an established system of information exchange. I support the proposal and am glad we are doing so at EU level. However, I have some concerns I would like the Minister to address. He pointed out that decisions are a matter for each member state. Am I correct in saying that part of the purpose of the Council decision is to allow a member state, bilaterally or through the European Union, to express a view as regards individual decisions taken by another member state? Does the process provide such scope to member states who believe that particular decisions might have a knock-on impact on them? I could foresee a problem where a decision by one member state to take extreme measures to block immigration or to expel immigrants could flow over into other member states. Perhaps the Minister will indicate what is envisaged in terms of a response to information gained through this process and how a follow-up might best be pursued.

Article 2 clarifies that we are speaking in this regard about the exchange of information based on draft international agreements. While it is obvious that this will only apply following a court decision, what will be defined as an administrative decision? The reference to administrative decisions at the time they are adopted or immediately thereafter does not appear to allow for time to obtain a response to a prospective administrative decision. It appears, as outlined by the Minister, to refer to administrative decisions as being a fait accompli, given that they will be covered at the time they are adopted.

My initial point regarding confidentiality has been addressed in that there is scope for confidentiality until such time as initiatives are published in full. I need not be concerned about leaks because they are covered by the Council decision. Subject to the Minister addressing the two concerns I have expressed, I am happy to support the proposal.

Deputy Costello

I welcome the Minister and his officials. As regards confidentiality, I presume matters of national security will override confidentiality.

Deputy McDowell

Particularly when a document is not confidential.

Deputy Costello

It is important that we at last have a leader in the country who can look into his heart and decide what is or is not a matter of national security.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

He can do so by looking into his files.

Deputy Costello

Like Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, I see no reason that we should not use modern technology to communicate information in respect of asylum and immigration matters between member states. That is the way forward. We should be more than willing to communicate our established national measures to other member states and vice versa and to exchange information in terms of policy developments and so on.

My questions relate to an area which appears to have been omitted from the scope of the legislation, namely, that the key issues relating to asylum are procedural in nature. They are matters of decision-making in terms of structures put in place regarding initial applications, future appeals and requests on humanitarian grounds. The motion does not include a reference in that regard. I am aware that each member state must make its own decisions but problems arise in terms of accountability and transparency, particularly in the appeals mechanism and where requests are made on humanitarian grounds, in that there is no way of knowing why, how or on what grounds such decisions are made. I would have thought that type of information would be useful to member states and would provide an element of transparency in terms of how decisions are reached.

The discretionary element of the proposal, which rests with the Minister, is not transparent in terms of applications on humanitarian grounds as the last line of defence. As a result, many cases end up in the courts. Perhaps the Minister will indicate the number of cases before the courts that are testing the correctness, transparency or accountability of the decision-making process in general. Would it not be useful to include that type of information in the proposal? Such provision would enable us to understand the lines of decision-making in other countries.

We are all aware of the lines of decision-making here in terms of applications, appeals and requests on humanitarian grounds and so on, but how does that operate in practice? Will the mutual information transmitted allow us to access information on how that is done in other countries and to discover the level of transparency that was involved? Will we also be able to discover the basis and criteria on which decisions are made, a process not available to us here in terms of appeals? Will that type of information be transmitted by Ireland to other countries or will it be covered by the confidentiality clause? It appears that the operation here of a more transparent mechanism would assist us in avoiding much of the hassle we encounter.

Can the Minister provide figures on deportation? If they cannot be provided immediately, perhaps they could be forwarded later. We must examine our position on issues of public concern that led to people from Afghanistan protesting outside the gates of Leinster House last week. This protest was held on the basis that few of their citizens were considered for asylum status. If people from Afghanistan are effectively being refused, even though there is mayhem in that country, can we exchange figures on whether other countries are granting asylum status to people from Afghanistan? Will such data be included in an exchange? It would be interesting to see what is happening vis-à-vis Nigeria, Romania, Afghanistan and the main countries that give rise to difficulties.

Other useful information would include the length of time it takes to process cases. Most of our problems arise because of the delay in processing. All of the people being deported at present have been in the country for between four to seven years. It seems amazing that we cannot deal with our applications in a more expeditious fashion. In the exchange of information, would we be able to discover the procedures and timescales in other countries? Will this information be on the web? It would be enormously valuable to see the countries that are dealing with this in a proper and expeditious fashion.

Deputy F. McGrath

I welcome the Minister. He is looking fresh after a bruising few days.

Deputy McDowell

I enjoyed the past few days immensely and will enjoy the next few days even more.

Deputy F. McGrath

I hope he can take the heat and is not suffering from too many bruises. I also hope he does not have a file on me.

Deputy Costello

If the Minister has a file on Deputy Finian McGrath, may we have it? All one has to do is table a parliamentary question and one will receive it.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

The Minister knows what he knows.

Deputy F. McGrath

He probably has a file on every Oireachtas Member.

Deputy McDowell

I had a friend who stated that his life was an open book. I replied that it was but with all the pages torn out.

Deputy F. McGrath

In respect of Article 1, dealing with the exchange of information concerning national measures on asylum and immigration, what type of information does the Minister envisage exchanging? There is a public perception of the Minister's stance on immigration and asylum issues. Why has he taken such a tough stance on these issues?

Last week, Deputy Costello and I met 120 Afghans who had been refused permission to remain in this country. Decent, hard-working young men who wanted to live in Ireland and make a contribution to society were being sent by the State back to Afghanistan, a war-torn area. Is this not a very tough stance to take and is it not in breach of international law? I am also concerned about their human rights.

There is another message in this stance and I accept that it may be politically popular. When the Minister was part of the 80% in favour of a referendum and I was part of the 20% against, I accepted the result. When one takes such a hardline stance on these issues, some sections of society will use that to create a hostile reaction to immigrants. The vast majority of immigrants in this country are making a major economic, social and political contribution to Irish society. There is a perception among certain sections that immigrants will take our jobs and undermine us on labour issues. This is a dangerous road down which to go.

Chairman

Regarding the decision on the establishment of mutual information procedure, I agree with Deputy Costello's point on making as much information as possible available on the web so that other countries can participate. It would be beneficial for the development of Europe, would bring the countries closer in the administration of such matters and would open up legal frameworks within which countries work. It would also lend itself to bringing people closer in the way they work and operate.

Does this break the mould regarding the availability of information? The provision of information on a web-based network is a development about which I have not previously heard. Will this be a template for the future? Will tax matters be provided on a web-based network for governments so that they may be informed? Tax harmonisation is coming to the fore because of decisions made in Europe and pressures to harmonise taxes. Will social welfare matters be dealt with in a similar manner? In the future, will we inform other governments of major budgetary decisions to gauge reaction to the implications on a European level? In this way, Europe could work in a more cohesive, integrated fashion in the future.

Concerning the appeals process in the refugee system, I believe there was a start-up time for the Refugee Appeals Commission. This was reasonable but a written reason should now be given for a decision. The web should be used to document decisions taken and to provide information in respect of court cases taken on refugee and asylum status. The court service has a good web-based system and this should be user-friendly so that Opposition politicians, the Government counterparts and other interested parties can easily see the position in respect of numbers of applications and reasons.

The Minister believes in transparency and openness and that everyone should be accountable.

Deputy McDowell

Others want things kept secret but I want them in the public domain.

Deputy F. McGrath

I am in favour of the truth.

Deputy Costello

If information is available, let us get it out in the open, especially when we can get a good journalist to do it.

Chairman

I would like to think that the Minister will leave a mark in the Department by increasing openness and accountability.

Deputy McDowell

In response to the Chairman's point, every appellant who applies to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal is given a written decision on his or her case. Appellants are not merely told they are rejected.

We deal with a huge volume of decisions, 28,000 of which have already been made. Under UN procedures we are not allowed to state that Michael McDowell was refused for this reason and on these grounds. The UN believes it is a breach of the convention for me to publish on a website that Joe Costello came from a particular country and made certain claims and that the public knows exactly what happened to him.

Chairman

Cases are sometimes reported in The Irish Times without names being mentioned.

Deputy McDowell

I will discuss that shortly. It would be a colossal task to make anonymous all 28,000 cases so the authorities in a mythical country in the middle of the world would not be able to recognise the person involved. If someone stated that he or she was a prominent politician and that his or her aunt or cousin was butchered by A, B or C, it would be easy for the country in question to identify that person — even if the name "A. N. Other" were used — if they examined an explicit case determination. In those circumstances, it would be easy for someone——

Deputy Costello

The reasons can be given without——

Deputy McDowell

That is the point. The Immigration Act 2003 provides that decisions of legal importance can be made. The chairman of the Refugee Appeal Tribunal is compiling a corpus of leading decisions where a point of practice, procedure or law of relevance to other cases was decided. I understand that it will be published in the new year. We do not have a system whereby every case goes through an enormous editorial process to ensure that no one could identify the country or person involved, give complete anonymity and then publish it on a website. It would take half a day to do that for each case, making a total of 14,000 days. We do not have that facility and we will not go down that road. I stated all of this previously.

For the benefit of the committee, a High Court decision by Mr. Justice MacMenamin is under appeal to the Supreme Court.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

It is under appeal.

Deputy McDowell

I understand the appeal will be held in March and I do not want to comment on it any further because I will be accused of——

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Why is it being appealed? It seemed a most sensible decision.

Deputy McDowell

I do not want to comment on the decision. If I start to do so——

Deputy F. McGrath

He does not want to damage due process. He is changing. He learned a lesson during the past few days.

Deputy McDowell

I do not think it is proper for people to——

Deputy Costello

For overriding the constitutional requirements.

Deputy McDowell

If a person is entitled to appeal, he or she is entitled to do so and that is it.

Deputy F. McGrath

Hear, hear. I agree with the Minister.

Deputy McDowell

Deputy Costello asked how we know what is happening. I will give the committee a feel for the current situation. In 2002 we received approximately 12,000 applications and this year approximately 4,000 were received. That reflects a number of matters, including the citizenship referendum, the introduction of different procedures and accelerated dealings with people from certain countries. There is a continued momentum in processing timescales for asylum applications, with new arrangements for the speedier processing of prioritised applications for nationals of Nigeria, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and South Africa introduced on 25 January this year. This involves a processing period of 15 working days in the first instance and 12 to 13 at appeal stage. Effectively, a 30-day period operates for prioritised people. The committee will be interested to know that these account for approximately 40% of asylum-seeking cases.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

The timeframe is interrupted by judicial review.

Deputy McDowell

If a judicial review takes place, the timeframe is completely altered. This is the internal mechanism.

To put it in context, those prioritised applications account for approximately 40% of total asylum applications. It is interesting to note that, in the past, Nigeria alone provided approximately 40% of all cases. Prioritisation obviously had a significant effect in reducing asylum applications. As members are aware, the reason is that the vast majority are not eligible. In the past, a pattern existed of people applying and relying on the bureaucracy taking so long to deal with it that up to three years would have passed and a fait accompli would be created. That is no longer the case. If a person comes with an entirely bogus application, he or she knows it will be dealt with relatively quickly.

In November, the number of applications that had been with the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the tribunal for more than six months stood at 375. Last year that number was 1,905 and in 2001 the backlog was 6,500. The latter is being dealt with quickly. We will soon be working on a current basis.

Deputy Costello

Does that figure include cases regarding Irish-born children?

Deputy McDowell

I do not think so. It is straight cases in arrears.

The number of cases awaiting processing in the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, ORAC, at the end of 2005 was down by more than 55% since November 2004. This can be attributed to the fall in applications and also to the increase in the number of recommendations issued. The Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner has advised that it is effectively in a current situation. It believes that it does not, as of last month, have a backlog. Interviews are scheduled for applicants on their arrival at ORAC.

The number of cases on hand in the Refugee Appeals Tribunal at the end of November 2005 was down by 22% on the figure for the same period in 2004. Deportation orders in 2003 amounted to 590. The figure was 599 in 2004 and 370 orders will have been effected to the end of 2005. The number of Dublin 2 orders effected in 2004 was 65. At the end of 2005, that figure stands at 186. Those orders involve telling a person they are in the wrong place and they must go to another country. Those figures are the amount of orders actually executed.

Voluntary returns are additional. The figure for 2004 was 611. In 2003 it was 762, which represented an increase on the 2002 figure of 506. To date this year, there have been 309 voluntary returns. If a person goes through the process, fails at the two stages and humanitarian leave to remain is not granted, he or she is written to and told to make arrangements to leave. The person is told that the International Organisation for Migration will assist him or her to get home. Effectively, the State will make arrangements, pay the person's passage and get him or her out of Ireland through the agency of the International Organisation for Migration. The person can go in his or her own time, such as at the end of a school term, and pack his or her own luggage. Everybody who is compulsorily deported has opted not to take this voluntary assistance to go home.

I will now give some figures on the IBC scheme. The referendum mentioned by Deputy Finian McGrath passed by an 80% to 20% margin. I indicated during the referendum that I would deal in a decent, humanitarian and compassionate way with the large number of individuals whose applications were based on existing law or on the expectation that something would happen on the basis of the existing law and who were at that stage in limbo. The law, as decided by the Supreme Court, allowed for deportation where necessary to maintain the integrity of our immigration laws. I brought to the Government a scheme whereby parents who were resident in Ireland continuously since the birth of their Irish born child would be entitled to apply to remain with their Irish born child for a period of two years, subject to the condition that they would be self-sufficient, of good behaviour and a good citizen, on the understanding that they could remain for a further three year period, bringing the total to five years, and in those circumstances, prima facie, satisfy the time limits for applying for full citizenship of Ireland, subject to being suitable. I informed the House and, I think, the joint committee that I was introducing such a scheme, which under proposed new arrangements would be notifiable to the other member states.

I was told — this is a point Deputy McGrath might take on board which I do not offer in any argumentative way — in the course of that 80% to 20% referendum campaign——

Deputy Costello

The ratio was actually 79% to 21%.

Deputy McDowell

We will not fall out over a figure of 1%.

Deputy F. McGrath

I thank Deputy Costello for the extra 1%.

Deputy McDowell

The Deputy's predictions that the referendum would be decisively lost were very wrong.

Deputy Costello

It was lost by a smaller margin.

Deputy McDowell

A number of people stated I was talking about a handful at that stage. Some 18,000 applications have been received under the IBC scheme and as of 22 November, 15,750 applications had been dealt with positively.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Will the Minister repeat that figure?

Deputy McDowell

Some 15,750 applications have been dealt with positively. I agree not everybody who applied was in danger of deportation or had come to Ireland with a view to obtaining Irish citizenship.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

What is the position of the others? Were many turned down?

Deputy McDowell

Approximately 100 were turned down.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I presume there were specific and valid reasons.

Deputy McDowell

They were ineligible because they were not in Ireland and had moved elsewhere.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

In other words, they did not qualify. Has anybody been turned down?

Deputy McDowell

A handful had committed serious offences. From the total number of applications, 779 were excluded, the majority on the grounds of eligibility, and only a handful on merit.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Is the Minister suggesting a dozen or so?

Deputy McDowell

I could not put an exact figure on it.

Deputy F. McGrath

Was this handful excluded because of involvement in criminal activity?

Deputy McDowell

The Deputy is right. A very small number have been affected.

Deputy Costello

Are there still approximately 2,000 cases to be heard?

Deputy McDowell

That was the position on 22 November. All applications will be processed before the end of this calendar year. The scheme will be administered completely by the end of the year.

Deputy Costello

How many are still in the pipeline?

Deputy McDowell

Of the 2,750 applications outstanding in November, some 1,500 remain to be dealt with between now and 31 December.

I refute the suggestion the scheme was cruel. However, I made it very clear that I would not agree to family reunions, in other words, if one parent and a child were in Ireland, it did not allow the other parent and all other children to come to Ireland to join them; otherwise, the number of applications could increase to between 50,000 and 80,000. I never envisaged doing this.

Let me reiterate for the benefit of those who will read the proceedings of the joint committee that I will not change that policy. That was the understanding of the Government when I sought sanction to introduce the scheme. This was made clear publicly and I will not walk away from it.

The Chairman raised the broader question of harmonisation. I remain totally opposed to tax harmonisation and do not believe we should be pressurised to go down that slippery slope. The notion of mutual information seems perfectly reasonable. If we are administering a scheme for 18,000 applicants, it might be of interest to the United Kingdom to note the number is 18,000 rather than 80,000, or there could be a cross-Border dimension in which it may have an interest. Acting as if there is nobody else on the Continent of Europe is not good manners, to put it mildly.

In response to the point raised by Deputy McGrath on Afghan people who were protesting outside Leinster House, they have gone through the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner. I believe most have gone through the tribunal, but if they have been turned down, each of them has received a decision as to why he or she has been turned down. If they have been turned down on invalid grounds or if there is something wrong with the decisions, they have access to legal aid to challenge them. The internal situation in Afghanistan is not such that Ireland can state decent, hardworking guys, to use the phrase Deputy McGrath uses, can simply come to Ireland as a matter of choice because the country is enduring strife. If I was to apply that scale, what about people from India and Pakistan and other significant centres of population?

Deputy F. McGrath

They are stable democracies. We are talking about public safety.

Deputy Costello

Afghanistan with its warlords, the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Deputy McDowell

Are Deputies Costello and McGrath contending anybody from Afghanistan can come to Ireland because of the turmoil in their country? We cannot have such a law. We will not go down that path. I could not possibly say such a thing. It would be a very serious breach of our obligations as a member of the European Union if I was to say that because of conditions in Afghanistan any young or old person who wanted to come to Ireland was welcome to do so.

Deputy Costello

The Minister is great at demolishing arguments that nobody has made.

Deputy McDowell

I am making a point.

Considerable resources are being spent annually to ensure our procedures are in line with best international practice. The highest standards are followed in the application of the procedures, as has been affirmed by the courts on several occasions. It is estimated that the provision of services for the accumulated asylum-seeking population in 2003 cost the Exchequer in excess of €353.17 million compared with €341 million in 2002. The figure for 2004 was €375 million. Therefore, even though the numbers are going down, the cost to the Exchequer is going up. Expenditure of this magnitude obviously requires a high degree of transparency and is subject to examination by the Committee of Public Accounts. These are substantial sums——

Deputy Costello

In the Estimates there was a 12% increase.

Deputy McDowell

——and represent the entire administrative costs to the Exchequer, from deportations to visas and all other services for the people concerned. Considerable sums of money are being spent.

Deputy Finian McGrath stated that I am taking a hard line on immigration. That is not the case.

Deputy F. McGrath

It is the public perception.

Deputy McDowell

That is because people like the Deputy keep saying it. The Government has taken one of the softest lines on immigration in the European Union. Ireland is one of the most easily accessed countries in the EU. Ireland is one of a small minority of member states that did not erect defences to keep workers from the applicant states at a disadvantage in coming here.

Deputy Costello

The Minister is referring to migration.

Deputy McDowell

It is the same as immigration. We have established INIS, the Irish naturalisation and immigration service. Its purpose is to provide a one-stop-shop for migrants. It will incorporate the Department's asylum, immigration and citizenship functions and structures. The visa section of the Department of Foreign Affairs will be transferred to the naturalisation and immigration service in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Responsibility for the provision of visa services at diplomatic and consular missions abroad will remain with the Department of Foreign Affairs. INIS aims to provide a cohesive system for the issuing of work permits through an arrangement with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The overall effectiveness of these arrangements will be reviewed within two years. The economic migration policy function relating to work permits will remain with the Minister for Enterprise Trade and Employment.

The naturalisation and immigration service will include a new immigrant integration unit to promote and co-ordinate social and organisational measures across the spectrum of Government in respect of the acceptance of lawful immigrants into Irish economic and social life. Work has commenced on establishing that body and it will dovetail with the introduction of the immigration and residence Bill, which I hope to publish early in the new year.

Progress is being made. The visa services unit is being transferred to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Responsibility for passport applications will remain with the Department of Foreign Affairs. When people make fraudulent applications for passports, they do not create a confidential document. They are not entitled to have that document remain secret. No duty of confidentiality is owed to the author of such a document. When, and if, the national interest requires it, I will put it in the public domain. I am advised authoritatively that this is my entitlement.

Deputy Costello

It is a question of how it is put in the public domain.

Deputy McDowell

If it is the Opposition's view that any material requested by the media from my Department must be given to all the media equally, it should try to get the newspaper editors to subscribe to the proposition that henceforth any information, document or material from my Department cannot be provided for use in a newspaper unless I have put it on a website——

Deputy Costello

Even when the security of the State is threatened?

Deputy McDowell

——and circulated it to everybody else.

Chairman

Why does the Minister not do that?

Deputy McDowell

When one of my colleagues decided that information requested under the Freedom of Information Act would be put on the Department's website, the Fourth Estate was most annoyed and protested that it was an abuse of the system because newspapers could not privately access information without their competitors knowing.

Deputy Costello

That sounds very interesting.

Deputy McDowell

It is a fact. They believed they were wasting their money

Deputy Costello

The Minister would be quite right not to pay too much attention to the Fourth Estate. He should put information on the Department's website. He should publish and be damned.

Chairman

We should return to business.

Deputy Costello

Could the Minister provide some idea of his intentions regarding aged-out minors, an issue that is currently causing much grief? I understand that an increase of 12% is provided in the budget for 2006, mainly for accommodation. Has the Minister entered into contracts to the extent that he is now paying for accommodation, for empty centres or bed and breakfast accommodation where there are no asylum seekers? Is this part of the reason for the continuing and very high bill for accommodation?

Chairman

Is Deputy Costello referring to his constituency?

Deputy Costello

The Minister referred specifically to my constituency. He would have great difficulty referring to his own constituency in that respect.

Deputy F. McGrath

Does the Minister not see any contradiction regarding the 120 men who are going back to Afghanistan, a war-torn area, while we are asking the United States of America to accept 25,000 of our nationals?

Chairman

We will leave that as a comment.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I raised concerns regarding the operation of the accommodation for asylum seekers and refugees and it was decided that the committee would have a special meeting at some stage with the Minister to examine various aspects of it. I still want that special meeting. A large amount of money is being spent and it is important to carefully scrutinise this expenditure to ensure that it is properly administered and that it is going into hands of which we would approve.

Deputy McDowell

I have no difficulty with having a meeting. There is a €5 million integration budget this year from the Department. RIA, the Irish Reception and Integration Agency, is closing down a number of premises because there is no longer a need for them. A total of 14, mainly outside Dublin, were closed in 2005. Only one — at Montpelier Hill apartments in Deputy Costello's constituency — in Dublin is being closed down. Some accommodation may be temporarily empty but I do not imagine there is a significant amount because I am aware that issue is being addressed.

On aged-out minors, people who come here as minors receive full education, full health board accommodation and so on. When they come of age, the issue of whether they should go home if they have been refused asylum is decided on a case-by-case basis. Under no circumstances will I make a blanket decision regarding them. It would be wrong of me to do so. It would be very unfair if 17 year olds coming to Ireland were treated differently from 19 year olds when a decision must be made as to whether they should return home at the age of 19 or 21, as the case may be.

Chairman

That concludes our discussion on this subject. In accordance with Standing Orders, the joint committee will report back to Dáil and Seanad Éireann to the effect that it has completed its consideration of the motion. A formal message in the manner prescribed in Standing Orders will be sent separately to the Clerks of the Dáil and Seanad confirming that the joint committee has completed its consideration of the motion. Is it agreed there should be no further debate on the matter in both Houses? Agreed. Is the draft report, subject to the insertion of the documents supplied by the Department and details regarding attendance of contributions to the discussion, agreed to? Agreed.

I thank the Minister.