I welcome the Minister.
Ireland-Romania Agreement
I am grateful to the select committee for making time available before the summer recess to discuss the terms of this agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of Romania regarding the readmission of their citizens and third country citizens illegally residing in the territories of their respective states.
I signed this agreement on behalf of the Government with the Romanian Minister for the Interior on 12 May last in Bucharest. Readmission agreements of this type, which can be bilateral or multilateral in scope, provide a mechanism for a contracting state to readmit to its territory certain categories of persons at the request of another contracting state. They are intended primarily to enhance the deportation process by providing a structured framework within which persons who do not or no longer satisfy the conditions enforced for entry or residence on the territory of one contracting party can be returned to the other contracting party.
Readmission agreements are a significant feature of international co-operation in tackling immigration. A very large number of such agreements have been concluded by the main western European states, including states of the European Union. The importance of such agreements was also recognised at EU level when on 30 November 1994 the Council adopted a specimen bilateral readmission agreement, which it recommended should be used by the member states as a basis for negotiation with third countries on the conclusion of readmission agreements.
The agreement before the committee today is based very much on the EU specimen text. A number of specific reasons explain the interest in readmission agreements by EU states in particular. When large numbers of illegal emigrants and rejected asylum applicants reside on the territory of a state an agreement such as this can facilitate their readmission to their countries of origin on the basis of reciprocity and unambiguous contractual obligations. In the absence of such an agreement, it can sometimes be the case that co-operation may not be available from the country of origin or, alternatively, the readmission procedure may be cumbersome and the negotiations between the parties involved time-consuming.
Readmission becomes a particularly difficult and time-consuming problem when illegal immigrants destroy their passports and other identity papers, making it difficult to establish their nationality or country of origin. A readmission agreement can minimise these difficulties by specifying the formalities required and simplifying them so as to make the process of readmission more expeditious.
In recent years large numbers of third country nationals have been travelling through Central and Eastern European countries to reach western Europe and North America for the purpose of remaining illegally there. Readmission agreements by the inclusion of provisions dealing with the return of non-nationals through the territory of either contracting party can assist in restraining migratory flows through countries for transit purposes to main destination states.
Romania represented the largest source country for asylum seekers in Ireland in 1999. Of the 7,724 persons who sought asylum in the state in 1999, 2,226 or 28.8% were from Romania. Recent UNHCR statistics also indicate that of all western European states, including EU states, Ireland was the largest recipient of asylum applicants from Romania in 1999, namely, 2,226 or 25.9% of a total of 8,596. Up to 31 May 2000 Romania represented the second highest country of origin for asylum seekers entering this state, namely, 1,303 or 28% of the total number of asylum applications at that time.
I want to emphasise my commitment to meeting the state's obligations under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol on the Status of Refugees, which are the main international legal instruments aimed at the protection of refugees. As the committee will be aware, in line with our obligations under the convention and protocol, we have fair and transparent procedures in place for the processing of asylum applications. Such procedures involve first instance hearings and a right of appeal to an independent appeals authority. When the Refugee Act, 1996, as amended by the Immigration Act, 1999, becomes fully operative shortly, these functions will be carried out by the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.
It is clear that only a very small number of Romanian nationals who gain asylum in this state are found to be genuine refugees needing the protection afforded by the 1951 Geneva Convention. For example, in 1999, of 789 Romanian applications determined at first stage only two applicants were granted refugee status and of 284 appeals from Romanian nationals determined that year 68 were granted refugee status. Up to 31 May this year, of 538 Romanian applications determined at first instance none has been granted refugee status and of 139 appeals from Romanian nationals determined so far this year five were granted refugee status. Those statistics clearly indicate that the vast majority of Romanian nationals claiming refugee status in this state have been found not to be genuine refugees. This agreement provides a mechanism by which such persons at the end of a fair and transparent asylum procedure can be returned to their country of origin.
I wish to go through the main provisions of the agreement. The preamble to the agreement sets out its main objectives, which are to combat illegal immigration on a reciprocal basis and to facilitate the readmission of persons who are residing illegally in the territory of the contracting parties and the transit of such persons when transferred to a third country.
Article 1 of the agreement sets out the key definitions. Article 2 provides for the readmission without any special formality of a citizen of either of the contracting parties where it is proved or may be validly assumed that such person possesses citizenship of the requested contracting party. The article also provides that the requesting contracting party must readmit the person concerned should subsequent investigations prove that he or she was not a citizen of the requested contracting party at the time the person left the territory of the requesting contracting party.
Article 3 sets out the documentation and other evidence which can be used to prove citizenship, which is quite wide-ranging. Its terms are significant and that documentation alone is not relied upon to prove citizenship. Prima facie evidence regarding citizenship can be furnished by statements made by witnesses or by the person to be returned, or orally by the person concerned. Where the documentation or the prima facie evidence do not suffice for citizens to be proved or validly assumed, the agreement provides for the competent diplomatic representation of the requested contracting party to interview the person concerned without undue delay to establish his or her citizenship.
Article 4 contains provisions for the readmission of a third country citizen who is residing without authorisation on the territory of the state of the requesting contracting party and who has arrived on the territory of the requesting contracting party directly from the territory of the requested contracting party or has a valid resident permit or visa issued by the competent authorities of the requested contracting party.
Article 5 provides for exceptions to the readmission obligation in respect of third country citizens. Article 6 contains provisions which allow third country citizens to pass through the territory of a contracting party in transit for the purpose of returning to a third country. It is envisaged that these provisions will be rarely utilised.
Article 7 sets out the time limits for reply to a readmission request - a maximum of 20 days following receipt of the request - and the manner in which a request can be submitted. It also provides that any refusal of such requests shall be supported by reasons. This article also sets out the time limits for taking charge by the requested contracting party of the person to be readmitted, namely, a maximum of three months from the date of approval of the readmission request that provides for this time to be extended upon request of the requesting contracting party.
Article 8 sets out the time limit for the submission of a readmission request, namely, within 12 months of the conclusion of all necessary national, including legal procedures, in the requesting contracting party.
Article 9 sets out relevant information which may be provided for the purpose of a readmission request and contains provisions for the use and protection of that data.
Article 10 provides that the requesting contracting party shall bear all costs associated with the admission of persons under this agreement.
Article 11 provides that the requesting contracting party shall allow a person who is to be returned to carry all his or her legally acquired personal belongings to the country of destination.
Article 12 contains the implementation provisions of the agreement and provides, for example, that the contracting party shall inform each other of the competent authorities responsible for its implementation. It also deals with the manner in which logistical issues such as travel arrangements and itineraries are to be decided.
Article 13 provides that the agreement shall not affect the rights and obligations of each of the contracting parties under international treaties, conventions and other agreements.
Article 14 provides that the agreement is concluded for an indefinite period and that it will enter into force 90 days after the date on which each contracting party has notified the other that the national legal procedures required to give effect to the agreement have been completed. It also contains provisions for amending, temporarily suspending or denouncing the agreement.
Article 15 provides that each contacting party may request a review of the agreement at any time.
I would like to express my appreciation to the Romanian authorities for their co-operation in concluding this agreement. I welcome in particular the significant progress in the development of democratic institutions in Romania over recent years. I also welcome the opening in February of this year of EU accession negotiations with Romania.
This agreement is only one of a range of significant initiatives I have taken to deal with the problem of illegal immigration, which undermines the integrity of our immigration and asylum systems, the primary aim of which must be to identify and protect genuine refugees. This agreement is the first readmission agreement into which the state has entered. Arrangements are being made at present to conclude similar agreements with Poland and Nigeria. Consideration has also been given to the conclusion of an agreement with Bulgaria. The need to conclude additional agreements with other countries will be under review on an ongoing basis.
While fully recognising Ireland's international obligations to asylum seekers, we must ensure that the integrity of our asylum process and the refugee concept is protected as well as public confidence in the system generally. Illegal immigration undermines the integrity of our immigration and asylum systems, the primary aim of which must be to identify and protect genuine refugees. It is essential, therefore, if we are to underline that integrity, that a structured framework is in place to ensure that those who are residing illegally in the State are returned to their country of origin. I have no doubt this agreement will contribute in a positive manner to this objective.
Of the 538 applications rejected last year, how many were rejected in accordance with the provisions of the Dublin Convention? There is no direct access from Romania to this country. What are the reasons advanced by applicants as to why they wish to come here when they make their cases at Lower Mount Street? Is the Minister satisfied that no punitive measures or sanctions will be taken against these people when they are returned forcibly to Romania? Has he any qualms or difficulty in relation to the return of these people, particularly if they are members of the ethnic Romany minority? There is a perception that such people suffer discrimination in Romania.
This is not so much a question and answer session as a debate. If the Deputy wishes to comment on the matter at this point, it would be appropriate.
I would normally but given that we are encroaching the time assigned for the next item, I only seek answers to my four brief questions.
We were not anticipating questions. However, as I indicated earlier, Romania is now a democratic country and has made great strides in developing its democratic institutions since the Ceaucescu regime was overthrown in 1989.
All asylum applicants in Ireland have their applications assessed rigorously, both in the first instance and on appeal, and this includes an assessment of the human rights situation in their countries of origin. These assessments take into account the latest situation reports on the countries in question prepared by international organisations and governments, for example, the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the European Union. A decision to refuse an application will only have been made if it is deemed that the provisions of section 2 of the Refugee Act, 1996, do not apply - in other words, there is no well founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. If such fears were well founded, refugee status would have been granted.
The Refugee Act, 1996, already incorporates the principle of non refoulement which means that a person will not be expelled from the State or returned in any manner to a state where, in the opinion of the Minister, the life or freedom of that person will be threatened on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Furthermore, the Act provides that a person’s freedom shall be regarded as being threatened if, inter alia, in the opinion of the Minister, the person is likely to be subject to a serious assault.
With regard to the statistics under the Dublin Convention sought by the Deputy, I do not have the precise figure. I am aware, however, that the people being returned under the Dublin Convention are few at present. This should change significantly when the fingerprinting provisions of the Refugee Act are introduced.
I have taken strong issue with the Minister on a number of measures he has brought before the committee or the Dáil in relation to asylum seekers and immigration matters. I will not take issue with the proposals he brings before us today. I have no difficulty supporting a readmission agreement which makes it more simple and less painful for non-nationals who are determined not to have refugee status in this country to be returned to their home country.
The country concerned is Romania and the facts put to the committee by the Minister speak for themselves. There must be some analysis available to him as to why a peripheral island in the European Union should be the recipient of the largest number of nationals from Romania seeking asylum. It is a geographical requirement that they transport themselves across the entire continent to get to this island, no mean achievement. Why is that happening? Does the Minister have an explanation? The notion that Ireland, above all western European countries, is the preferred location for such applicants is puzzling. I doubt that it is the warmth of the Minister's reputation in Romania, although perhaps his Kerry céad mile fáilte is so well understood in that nation that it attracts its people.
A number of Romanians have arrived in my constituency on the ferries from continental Europe. As a matter of necessity they would have crossed a number of third countries, all of which would provide asylum to a genuine asylum seeker who applied for asylum. I presume the Minister has considered that issue, since they comprise such a significant proportion of asylum seekers in this country. Perhaps he will offer the committee an explanation in that regard.
In relation to the Minister's intention to secure other bilateral agreements with Poland, Nigeria and Bulgaria, can he update the committee on when the readmission agreements will be ready? How far advanced are the negotiations with the Nigerian authorities?
I do not have a contentious view of the agreement before the committee. However, with regard to the stationing in this jurisdiction of police officers from Romania, has that taken place, how many will there be and where will they be located? What are their specific duties and what is their legal authority to be in this State?
It is remarkable that there are so many applicants for asylum from Romania in this State. There are a number of identifiable reasons for it, not the least of which is the current performance of the economy.
Does the Minister believe the Celtic tiger is common knowledge in Romania?
It is common knowledge in many parts of Europe. There is only one flight from Romania to Dublin each week and that is not giving rise to any problem. Obviously, that suggests Romanian nationals coming here to seek asylum are transiting other European countries. Under the Dublin Convention, they are obliged to make their applications for asylum in the country where they can first reasonably do so. There is considerable evidence to suggest that many Romanians are coming from Great Britain and France to this State and claiming asylum. If this is so and they had the opportunity of applying for asylum in those countries, they should have done so.
I have made arrangements with the British authorities and I am finalising arrangements with the French authorities to exchange fingerprints of asylum seekers. There is nothing unusual about this; it is a common feature of immigration law throughout the world.
With regard to Nigeria, I had a successful meeting last week with the Nigerian ambassador and some of his officials to discuss a readmission agreement with his government. I am of the view that we will be in a position to conclude such an agreement. At present, a text is being examined to which we will respond shortly. Official meetings have also taken place. With regard to the possibility of it being executed soon, I anticipate that it should happen within the next couple of months. There will be an official level meeting in the near future and that should be followed by a ministerial meeting.
With regard to the role of the Romanian police officers, during the discussions I had in Bucharest with the Romanian authorities on the readmission agreement it was agreed that two Romanian officials, one from the Romanian police and one from the immigration service, would be seconded to work in Dublin with our immigration authorities. Exchanges of this nature for the purposes of strengthening international co-operation are not new. As I announced on 8 May, for example, the Government, as part of a number of measures agreed in relation to asylum, refugees and immigration matters, approved a strengthening of Garda international liaison arrangements by the placing of Garda liaison officers in London and Paris for the purpose of interacting with local law enforcement authorities particularly on immigration matters with specific reference to the combating of trafficking activity.
The vast majority of asylum seekers arrive in the state via the United Kingdom or France and, therefore, the Government recognises that a strengthening of international liaison with those countries in particular is important in identifying immigration trends and flows and other immigration related activities. The Garda Síochána already has permanent liaison officers in Madrid, the Hague and Europol headquarters.
The primary function of the Romanian officials being seconded to Ireland is to act as liaison officers between the Romanian and Irish authorities. In particular, they will assist with the smooth operation of the readmission agreement by, for example, liaising with the authorities in Bucharest on arrangements for the return of persons who are to be deported and assisting in efforts being taken by both states to tackle illegal trafficking in people by the exchange of information and other initiatives. I hope the Romanians will be in place in July in this jurisdiction and I foresee no problems in relation to the exercise of sovereignty etc. for the reasons I outlined regarding their functions.
Deputy Howlin's final question related to Poland. The current situation is that a text is being examined. It is anticipated that there will be a readmission agreement in the near future with Poland. We will then move onto the issue of Bulgaria. The motto in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform at present is "Join the Department of Justice and see the world". This is unusual for the Department.
Is anything urgent and positive happening at European level with regard to the fact that a combination of asylum seekers, refugees and immigrant workers is pouring across borders into eastern Europe, where the poorest countries in Europe are located? While the EU is battening down the hatches, has any special funding or investment been provided to those countries to help them? The poorest countries are being asked to cope with the largest number of people in terms of accommodation etc. From political and moral points of view, the EU should help.
Does the Minister know if urgent discussions in that regard are taking place? It only recently came to my attention that people are pouring across the border from Russia. For example, Albania has been named as a country that is taking an unusually high number of people although it can barely support itself. The EU could play a positive role immediately in this area.
My understanding is that there are arrangements or agreements between the EU and eastern European countries with regard to the issue of refugees. These deal with such matters as EU aid. I am also aware that the Justice and Home Affairs Council is currently discussing the establishment of a refugee fund. The issue being decided is how best this money should be divided. My view is that the money should be divided in terms of the number of asylum seekers vis-à-vis the population or a proportion of the population. However, I do not know if that measure will be accepted because larger states might consider it more favourable to smaller states.
It is clear that if the movement of peoples from eastern European countries to western Europe is to be minimised, eastern European countries from where people are coming must be assisted with regard to development. That is the kernel of the matter. People who are economic migrants are also illegal immigrants. They are often unfortunate and vulnerable people. In addition, ruthless people involved in organised criminal gangs are involved in trafficking them across Europe.
The most desirable situation would be a cohesive EU response to the difficulties of developing and underdeveloped countries. This would be the ideal solution. I do not know how long it will take for such a policy to crystallise. I am aware it was agreed in 1990 that Eurodac, a central database for fingerprinting, would be established. However, ten years later it still has not been set up. These bodies move relatively slowly. As the Deputy is aware, decisions can be painstaking. However, I agree with her that the ideal solution to the problem would be the build-up of local economies and the provision of development aid. It is the only solution in the short to long-term. A fortress Europe is not the answer.