I will attempt to read it quickly.
I am grateful to the committee for making time available to discuss the terms of these three agreements on immigration readmission matters with Poland, the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Bulgaria. The Minister signed the agreement with Poland in Warsaw on 12 May 2001, with the Federal Republic of Nigeria in Abuja on 29 August 2001 and with Bulgaria in Dublin on 31 January this year. Readmission agreements of this type are a significant feature of international co-operation in the field of immigration. A readmission and return policy is recognised internationally as an integral and vital element in the fight against illegal immigration.
At the global consultations on international protection, ongoing at present under the auspices of the UNHCR to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees, it has been recognised that the early return to their country of origin of persons who, following a fair and efficient asylum procedure, have been determined not to be in need of international protection is important. Such an approach can contribute to discouraging irregular migratory movements both from countries of origin and transit countries. Accordingly, returns are, not only part of a viable migration policy, but also important for the maintenance of the institution of asylum and for credibility and efficiency of asylum systems. In this regard, the UNHCR has made it clear that it is ready to support states in their efforts to return asylum applicants who are found not to be in need of international protection, provided that the involvement of that organisation is fully consistent with its humanitarian mandate to protect refugees. To date, some 300 readmission agreements have been concluded internationally, of which about 250 are between EU member states and the main source countries of illegal immigrants. Discussions are ongoing at EU level to conclude readmission agreements with Russia, Sri Lanka and Morocco.
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 member states as a basis for negotiation with third countries on the conclusion of such agreements. The principal elements of the agreements before the committee today are based very much on the EU specimen text.
It is important to clarify the exact nature and purpose of immigration readmission agreements of the type before the committee today. Rather than being directly connected with the actual decision to repatriate persons, agreements of this type 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 in force for entry or residence on the territory of one contracting party can be returned to the other contracting party. Accordingly, readmission agreements, in so far as they deal with the mechanism for the return of persons to their countries of origin, are logistical in nature and set out the procedures which must be complied with when a person is being returned. The actual decision to deport or return a person to his or her country of origin is something totally separate. This has its foundation in a comprehensive legislative base and a series of strict safeguards, both legislative and judicial, all of which must be complied with before the mechanisms provided by the agreements actually kick into place.
In the case of asylum applicants whose applications for refugee status are unsuccessful, before final decisions are taken on such applications, detailed inquiries are carried out by both the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, both at first instance and at the appeals stage, on the basis of comprehensive country of origin information which is updated on an ongoing basis to determine whether an applicant for asylum has a well founded fear of persecution having regard to the definition of "refugee" in section 2 of the Refugee Act, 1996. It is open to an applicant, or his or her legal representative, to provide additional or alternative country of origin information to assist the Refugee Applications Commissioner, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal or the Minister in this decision making process. All applicants are also entitled to a personal interview at first instance and, in substantive cases, an oral appeals hearing.
The Immigration Act, 1999, also sets out in a transparent way the principles, powers and procedures governing the deportation process. These include a requirement that the person be given a 15 day period within which to make representations as to a reason a deportation order should not be made. Even if representations are not made, the Minister is required to have regard to a range of 11 different factors, including humanitarian considerations, in determining whether a deportation order should be made. The making of a deportation order is subject to section 5 of the Refugee Act, 1996, which absolutely forbids the sending of a person "in any manner whatsoever" to a place where the life or freedom of the person would be threatened on account of that person's race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. This overarching principle is the bedrock of Ireland's repatriation framework and cannot be circumvented by the provisions of any readmission agreement to which the State becomes a party. Consequently, the procedures in the three agreements before the committee today cannot be invoked in an individual case in advance of the foregoing provisions of national legislation being applied. It is also open to a person who is not satisfied with the manner in which national legislative provisions have been applied to challenge the validity of any deportation order made by way of an application for judicial review. Legal aid is available for this purpose.
Nigeria represented the largest source country for asylum seekers in Ireland in 2000 and 2001. Of the 10,938 persons who sought asylum in the State in 2000, 3,404, or 31.1%, were from Nigeria. For 2001, there were 10,325 asylum applicants, of whom 33.5%, or 3,461, were Nigerians. Of the 10,052 Nigerian asylum applications made in 29 industrialised countries in 2001, including Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, the USA and Germany, some 3,461 were lodged in Ireland, which represents nearly 35% of the total number of such applications in that period. Ireland was also by far the highest recipient of asylum seekers from Nigeria in the European Union in 2001. So far this year, of the 2,414 asylum applications received, some 812 have been made by Nigerian nationals.
In the case of Poland, some 242 applications for asylum were received in 2000 and 242 applications in 2001. A total of 153 applications for asylum were received in 2000 and 93 in 2001 from Bulgarian nationals.
As the Minister did on many previous occasions, I emphasise the Government's continued commitment to meeting the State's obligations under the 1951 Geneva Convention and 1967 protocol on the status of refugees, 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 a fair, transparent and independent process in place for dealing with asylum applications. Considerable progress has been made in dealing with applications since the Minister established the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, and the allocation of significant additional resources to both the asylum and immigration processes.
Having gone through an independent determination process which includes legal assistance, only a very small number of Nigerian, Polish and Bulgarian nationals who claim asylum in the State are found to be in need of refugee protection afforded by the 1951 Geneva Convention. For example, in 2000, of 2,188 Nigerian asylum applications determined, 27 applicants were granted refugee status. In 2001, of 2,186 Nigerian applications determined, 71 applicants were granted refugee status. Of asylum applications from Polish nationals processed, one was granted refugee status in 2000 while eight received such status in 2001. No protection was granted to Bulgarian nationals applying for asylum refugee status in 2000. A total of 16 received such status in 2001. These statistics clearly indicate that the vast majority of nationals from the three countries covered by the agreements who claim refugee status in the State are found not to be in need of refugee protection.
I will outline the principal features of the agreements, the preamble to which sets out their main objectives which include combating illegal immigration on a reciprocal basis and facilitating the readmission of persons residing illegally in the territories of the contracting parties. TheNigerian agreement covers nationals of the contracting parties only, whereas those with Poland and Bulgaria also make provision for the return of non-nationals and the transit of persons through either of the contracting parties for the purpose of return to a third country.
The agreements include procedures to be utilised in circumstances where documentary proof of citizenship is available and unavailable. Article 2 of the Polish and Bulgarian agreements and Article III of the Nigerian agreement provide for the readmission of citizens of the contracting parties not eligible for entry or residence in the requesting state. Article 3 of the Polish and Bulgarian agreements and Article V of the Nigerian agreement set out the type of documentary evidence which can be utilised in order to prove citizenship. If passports are not available - this is often the case in these situations - a wide range of other documentation can be used. In addition, prima facie evidence of citizenship can be furnished by, for example, statements made by witnesses or the person to be returned. Where documentary evidence of citizenship is not available, the agreements provide for the persons concerned to be interviewed by the relevant diplomatic missions of the contracting parties in order to establish citizenship. In the case of the agreement with the Federal Republic of Nigeria, strict time limits are contained in Article VI for the carrying out of such interviews, decisions and the issue of the necessary travel documents required because of the lack of passports.
Article 5 of the Polish agreement and Article 4 of the Bulgarian agreement also make provision for the repatriation of third country nationals who arrived in one contracting party directly from the other. Article 8 of the Polish agreement and Article 7 of the Bulgarian agreement also allow third country nationals to pass through the territory of a contracting party in transit for the purpose of returning to a third country. It is envisaged that the latter provisions will be rarely utilised.
All the agreements provide that the requesting state must readmit a person who has been returned through the mechanisms provided by the agreements where it is subsequently established that the person concerned is not a national of the state concerned. Strict protection provisions are contained in Article 9 of the Polish text, Article 10 of the Bulgarian text and Article XVII of the Nigerian agreement both in relation to the type of data which can be transmitted in support of a readmission request and in relation to the use to which that information can be put.
In the case of the agreement with the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Article XVIII deals with the provision of technical assistance and training in immigration matters for Nigerian immigration and consular officials. It also provides for the continuation of the State's significant programme of co-operation with Nigeria focusing on basic needs and poverty reduction under the aegis of Ireland Aid. Within the limits of the existing NGO co-financing scheme, we have expressed a readiness to consider enhancing this programme, including areas such as HIV-AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases and skills acquisition to assist people living in poverty in Nigeria which can include those who have returned to that country.
There is no hidden agenda behind this provision. I totally reject reports that the State has promised large amounts of development aid to the Nigerian authorities to encourage them to sign this agreement. Ireland's development co-operation assistance with Nigeria is channelled entirely through NGOs and missionary groups. Ireland Aid is very conscious of the problem of HIV-AIDS and its effects on all aspects of development and ready to assist in this area through the work of NGOs and missionaries. Any applications submitted in this area or for skills training initiatives would have to satisfy normal eligibility criteria.
All the Governments with which we have concluded these texts approached the discussions in a very constructive manner and a spirit of co-operation. We have all looked on the agreements as a means both of developing co-operation in the area of illegal migration and also as providing a structured framework for the return of nationals not eligible for entry or residence in one of the contracting parties.
Article XIX of the Nigerian agreement provides for the establishment of a high official level co-ordinating committee to ensure its effective implementation. I welcome the establishment of this committee as, in addition to the structured framework which the agreement in general provides for repatriations, the committee will provide a forum to allow particular difficulties in relation to the smooth functioning of the agreement, including both legal and illegal immigration aspects, to be resolved with a view to the improvement of bilateral co-operation on immigration matters generally between Nigeria and Ireland. Among its functions will be to examine ways in which increased opportunities for legal access to the Irish labour market by Nigerian nationals can be developed.
Article XX of the Nigerian text contains strong human rights guarantees for the treatment of persons being repatriated. All the agreements contain provisions dealing with dispute resolution, costs, amendments, entry into force and implementation and the circumstances in which they can be terminated.
I express my appreciation to the Nigerian, Polish and Bulgarian authorities for their co-operation in concluding the agreements. Readmission agreements are a growing feature of co-operation between states in immigration matters. There are a large number of reasons such agreements are helpful. When large numbers of illegal immigrants and unsuccessful asylum applicants reside on the territory of any state, agreements such as these can facilitate their readmission to their countries of origin on the basis of reciprocityand unambiguous contractual obligation. Readmission becomes a particularly difficult and time consuming problem when illegal immigrants destroy their passports or other identity papers - which is often the case in Ireland - 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 in order to make the process of readmission more expeditious.
The agreements are only part of a range of significant initiatives which the Minister has taken to deal with the problem of illegal immigration which undermines the integrity of our immigration and asylum system, the primary aim of which must be to identify and protect genuine refugees. The State is not alone in recognising the importance of agreements such as this. Most recently, the Justice and Home Affairs Council also adopted a proposal for a comprehensive action plan to combat illegal immigration and trafficking of human beings in the European Union in which the importance of establishing a joint approach between EU member states for the purposes of implementing return measures is recognised. The European Commission is expected to publish a Green Paper analysing possible measures and courses of action to flesh out a Community return policy in the near future.
While fully recognising Ireland's international obligations to asylum seekers, we must also ensure the integrity of our asylum process and the refugee concept are protected as well as public confidence in the system generally. Illegal immigration undermines the integrity of our immigration and asylum system, the primary aim of which must be to identify and protect genuine refugees. It is absolutely essential, therefore, if we are to underline this integrity, that a structured framework is in place to ensure those residing illegally in the State are returned to their country of origin. I have no doubt that the agreements, subject to the necessary protections, particularly in relation to refoulement, which we have in place, will contribute in a very positive manner to this objective.
