Priority Questions
1. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if she will provide an update on current Garda Síochána recruitment numbers and internal vacancy competitions; her projections for total Garda numbers in 2015, 2016 and 2017; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [27360/15]
View answerI have tabled this question to elicit an update on current Garda recruitment numbers. I would also like a comment on some reports in the press about an internal competition for vacancies at senior ranks within An Garda Síochána, with a case taken against the Public Appointments Service. Given the recent publication of the Central Statistics Office report and trends in that regard, will the Minister outline the projected Garda numbers for 2015, 2016 and 2017?
The personnel strength of An Garda Síochána on 31 May was 12,772. The first intake since 2009, consisting of 100 recruits, entered training in Templemore on 15 September 2014. As part of the 2015 budget, I announced a further intake of 200 recruits, and on 15 December, the first 100 of those started. The remaining 100 entered the college in February this year. The September intake attested as members of the Garda Síochána on 23 April and, as I am sure the Deputy is aware, have been allocated by the Garda Commissioner to stations around the country, where they can get supervision and take up front-line duties. There will be further attestations in July and September, and I have received sanction for a further two intakes of 125 each. The number of new recruits coming on board is 550 in the past year. Taking account of crime trends and policing priorities, they will be assigned appropriately.
It is not possible to say precisely what Garda strength will be at the end of 2015, or even more so in 2016 and 2017, as this will depend on the number of retirements. They can vary quite significantly from one year to the next. As I have said all along, the retirement rate will be very carefully monitored and will naturally influence the level of recruitment needed to maintain Garda strength.
The Deputy also asked about internal vacancies at different levels. At senior management level there are very few vacancies, but as we move down levels there are some vacancies, and the Garda Commissioner has permission to recruit for them. I understand these will be filled through promotion competitions that are currently being arranged. I will circulate a document to the Deputy with the precise figures for vacancies at each level where there is an opportunity for promotion. The Deputy asked two further questions and I will return to them.
The problem in the community, as I and others are being told, is that the Garda capacity to investigate and detect crime, as well as Garda response times, are under much pressure because of the downward trend in headcount. The Minister has indicated that there are 550 recruits in or about to be in training, which is welcome. Will the Minister indicate where we will go after those 550 have been trained? She has rightly pointed out there are 12,772 gardaí, but we must bear in mind that 1,498 gardaí are today eligible for retirement. I know and accept that not all of those will go in one fell swoop. We can add to this the 500 gardaí who are out sick, on average, any day of the week, while another 230 are on incentivised career break. What is the Minister's projection for recruitment for the latter part of this year and into next year?
The Minister mentioned Garda stations. Many of the smaller stations that were not closed are supposed to be open, but they really only operate for an hour per day. Is the Minister aware of the case taken by a senior member of An Garda Síochána against the Public Appointments Service and the Attorney General, which I read about in the press? It relates to the interview process for the position of deputy commissioner.
Thank you. We can come back to the Deputy.
Is it not the case that the chairperson designate of the new independent authority, Ms Josephine Feehily, should be involved?
One of the key functions of the new independent authority is to recruit the most senior people within the organisation. Is this not putting the cart before the horse?
That is a long question.
There were about seven questions there. I will try to get through them.
The Minister will be well able to do so.
I want to see us continuing the rate of recruitment of at least 500 a year. In discussions with Templemore and the Garda Commissioner, it is very clear that this is the maximum Templemore can take per year. It has been higher in the past, but there have been issues about supervision when those recruits go out into the community and we want to do it to the highest professional standards, as does the Garda. I have said I want to see continuous recruitment to an Garda Síochána. The Garda Commissioner will keep an eye to the operational challenges.
One must also consider the kind of reform that is under way when talking about effective policing. It is very clear that investment in ICT is essential and will impact on effective use of Garda resources. Much of crime now, in the case of burglaries, for example, involves highly mobile gangs. The investment we have just made in the right type of vehicle is an essential part of targeting crime. It is not about sitting behind a desk, it is about being out there and being mobile. I would like to deal with the question Deputy Collins asked, very briefly if I could, about the open competition-----
I will have to come back to the Minister. There are other Deputies who want to get in and it is not fair to them.
Perhaps we can return to it, then. I wanted to give a reply on that.
The Minister is just going to address the issue I am raising regarding recruitment of a deputy commissioner, the second tier in the organisation.
It has been reported in the press that there is a legal challenge against the Public Appointments Service, the Attorney General and the State as to the whole process that was undertaken. I am asking the Minister to comment on that, given that we have a new independent authority coming down the tracks. What input, if any, has Josephine Feehily, as the chairperson designate, had to that process?
An open competition to fill the two vacancies at deputy commissioner level was held by the Public Appointments Service. An application for an interlocutory injunction in respect of that competition is currently being considered by the High Court. In those circumstances, the Deputy will understand that I cannot make any further comment on it. It is before the High Court. As regards the independent policing authority, I am awaiting a time to bring that legislation into the Dáil. Deputy Collins probably saw the position of chief executive advertised at the weekend. Clearly, once the independent policing authority is up and running, it would have a responsibility regarding recruitment, but not at this point.
Does the chairperson designate have any input into the competition?
Not at this point.
2. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Justice and Equality her plans to amend section 30 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 to ensure that local not for-profit, community festivals and sporting organisations are no longer charged significant amounts of money for policing services. [27087/15]
View answerI am seeking to establish whether the Minister intends to amend section 30. It relates to charging, not major sporting organisations here in the capital and in our other major cities, but local festivals that struggle to raise the money every year.
Section 30 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 provides a statutory basis for the Garda Commissioner, as Accounting Officer for the Garda Vote, to charge for the policing of certain events such as sports fixtures, concerts and festivals. I am informed by the Garda authorities that the cost to the event-holder is determined by the number of Garda personnel deployed. The operational plan for a particular event is formulated by local Garda management. The objective in charging for police services is to recover the cost of providing the service and all such charges are agreed with event-holders in advance.
I am sure that the House will agree that it is incumbent on all public bodies to ensure that they are run efficiently and cost-effectively. One of the means the Garda Commissioner has at her disposal to ensure the cost-effectiveness of the Garda Síochána is to charge for such services. I consider the Garda Commissioner and her management team to be best placed to determine the appropriate level of reimbursement to be sought in each case.
As regards the level of recoupment sought, I am advised by the Garda authorities that they seek to recover all of the policing costs associated with commercial events organised with the objective of making a financial gain without a specific community or charitable benefit. In respect of events held with the objective of providing a service to the community and-or making a financial gain with surplus proceeds going to the local community, a contribution towards the policing costs is requested. Exceptions to these arrangements are made, however, in respect of events run solely for charity purposes or national events such as the main St. Patrick's Day parade, and charges are not levied in these cases.
It is right that the Garda can charge for these services, but I support the lower level of charge for the kinds of events the Deputy is asking about, which benefit the community.
I have no plans to amend section 30. It seems to me that the Garda is implementing it in a fair and structured way.
The Minister talks about a reduced charge. I am aware of a festival in Donegal which struggles to raise funds every year. They got some funding from local government or arts bodies for their festival. They were charged €4,000 for policing by An Garda Síochána - €3,000 up front and €1,000 afterwards - which was more than the grant aid they had received from other government bodies. The gardaí in Donegal are very upset about this. They feel it is bad enough that their resources in the county have been cut back, the numbers of gardaí have come down and their relationship with local communities is struggling as a result, but then they have to charge the organisers €4,000 for policing of a festival that is invested back into the local community. That is merely one example and I could give the Minister many more. I believe the Minister needs to amend the section 30 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005. The intent was to charge for big stadia, such as Croke Park and the Aviva Stadium, but local not-for-profit festivals should not be contributing. The gardaí themselves do not want it. They are in an impossible situation. I am asking the Minister to amend the legislation.
An Garda Síochána is currently looking at this policy area and developing a policy document formulating in more detail how the policing at certain events should be approached. As I stated, they have charges for these major commercial public events. Being commercial, clearly, these are for profit.
On the question of community events, these will take Garda time and there is a considerable cost to many of them. It is incumbent on the organisers to reduce in so far as possible the level of policing that is needed at any particular event - obviously, we have to ensure public safety - and the presence of gardaí is nevertheless essential at some of these events.
Deputy Mac Lochlainn has written to me in this regard. He has concerns about certain events. I do not think it needs an amendment to the legislation, but perhaps more refined criteria on these charges could be developed that would better reflect the ability of those organisations to respond. The Deputy might like to contribute to that policy development.
That is encouraging. Sometimes, where there is clear legislation, the gardaí are given a clear framework. Gardaí, particularly in rural areas, pride themselves on the relationship they have with local communities, and it has been strong down the years.
I did not realise the issue arose with local organisations but since I raised it, many other organisations have come forward and stated that they have endured this over recent years and they are very unhappy about it. In communities that have been struggling over recent years with the recession, both the gardaí and these community organisations do not want it. If truth be told, I do not think the Minister would want it either. I ask the Minister to engage with her departmental colleagues and the Garda Commissioner to see whether it would be better to give clear direction in the legislation through a simple amendment. That would give them a clear framework in which to engage.
It would be a good gesture from the Garda for it to work in partnership at festival time. These festivals involve large numbers of volunteers. If one has all these volunteers and the Garda given a professional framework, that would be much better for everybody involved. I ask the Minister to amend the legislation.
I suggest the best way to deal with this would be to await the policy document currently under consideration by the Garda Commissioner and senior management. There will be further refinements to the policy in that regard. If, at that point, there is still a concern, I will discuss the issue with the Garda Commissioner to see whether any change to the legislation is necessary. I do not believe any change is necessary at present, but it does suggest there is a need for greater clarity in this area given that a new policy document is being prepared by An Garda Síochána. That will help resolve matters.
As a general principle, a graduated charge is a good idea in terms of responsibilities on those committees organising local events.
Clearly, their income must be taken into account and the charge must be reasonable if the event is considered worthy of being held. Let us await the policy document and take the matter from there.
3. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Justice and Equality her views on the independent working group report on asylum seekers that, among other issues, recommends the provision of residency to those who are over five years in direct provision centres and an increase in the weekly allowance; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [27088/15]
View answerWhat are the Minister's views on the report of the independent working group on direct provision, which is damning and contains limited recommendations on the provision of residency to those who have been more than five years in direct provision and on an increase in the weekly allowance? Does the Government intend to take on board these recommendations and make those changes?
I welcome the publication of the report but do not agree with the Deputy's assessment of it. This is the first time that any Government has examined the direct provision system in 15 years. The Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, and I set up the working group. All agencies working in this area were represented on it. It has made 173 recommendations. The report is broad and offers a roadmap for change in direct provision.
Like other European countries, Ireland is responding to the number of asylum seekers looking for protection. People who present must be accommodated. Some countries detain them while others provide hostels of various types and still others provide no accommodation at all. Ireland has a system of direct provision, which has been assessed by the working group.
Quite a number of recommendations can be implemented in the short term whereas others are medium-term or long-term recommendations. Some recommendations relate to persons who have been in the system for five years or longer and increasing the direct provision allowance. They are of a cross-cutting nature and require that I consult Cabinet colleagues. Many have significant resource implications and impact on other programmes, such as social housing.
We must be cognisant of the changing environment in terms of asylum seekers. There has been a major increase in numbers. We have seen the situation in the Mediterranean. The numbers entering Ireland are set to double this year from 1,500 asylum seekers to 3,000. While that is starting at a lower base than we had previously, the Government must consider the matter in the round. My intention is to revert to the Government as soon as possible, having consulted with colleagues. We need a Cabinet discussion. The recommendations are cross-departmental in that they have implications for social welfare, housing and education. A number of my colleagues have commented on some of the recommendations and indicated a number of changes that they are prepared to make and on which they are working.
An excessive length of time is the key problem. No other Minister has dealt with it, but we have the heads of a Bill that will introduce a single procedure. That is what will make the difference.
I thank the Minister. Does she agree that the current situation is inhumane and intolerable, as described accurately by the Minister of State? I am sure that she has visited the centres where conditions are inhumane and intolerable. People have no individuality or freedom over what they do in their lives and are dependent on their centres to provide food that may not be of sufficient nutritional quality. It is an horrific way to live. Almost 8,000 people are in this situation, of whom nearly 2,000 are children. More than 3,000 people have been in this situation for longer than five years.
The report's points include the uncertainty overshadowing people's lives, the lack of personal autonomy over the most basic aspects of their lives, the lack of privacy, the challenges of sharing space with strangers, the boredom and isolation and an inability to support themselves. After five years of living in this way, people's talents and skills, of which they have many, inevitably dim. They feel that they have been oppressed. Does the Minister agree that everyone should be gone after five years and that there should be an increase, which is still minimal as recommended, in the amount of money that they receive?
The accommodation that is used across Europe for asylum seekers varies considerably. I accept that the accommodation varies in Ireland too. There are issues for children and families in relation to accommodation. The biggest problem is the length of time that children and families are spending in the system. That was the point my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Ó Ríordáin, was making about the conditions. We are seeking to solve this problem by introducing new legislation to provide for a single procedure. This will mean that people's cases will be dealt with within a period of between six months and a year. The report says that when this more effective and efficient procedure has been introduced, other improvements can follow. Of course this procedure will also mean that economic migrants who are here illegally - people who are not asylum seekers but are assessed under that process - will have to return where possible to their country of origin. The EU stresses the issue of returns as well.
It is correct to say that the standard of accommodation and the manner in which asylum seekers are treated varies across Europe. In parts of Europe, people are literally in prison camps. We have something that approximates in some respects to open prison camps. While our conditions are not as bad as those in some other parts of Europe, we should not compare ourselves to the very worst conditions in Europe. Almost 8,000 people in this country are living in conditions that give them no control over the lives on a day-to-day basis. They cannot buy things for their children. They often cannot afford extracurricular activities for their children in school. They cannot socialise, interact or be based in society. The manner in which people are being treated is inhumane. Does the Minister agree on a more fundamental level that we should not have a system that segregates people and takes them away from the rest of society? I suggest that people should be allowed to work, to contribute to society, to pay tax and to live as normal human beings with proper decency and full human rights.
I have to say I do not accept the Deputy's characterisation of these facilities as open prisons. The children attend local primary and secondary schools, are entitled to medical services and are supported within the centres. I have some concerns. My primary concern and main effort right now is to make sure people are not in the system for lengthy periods. As the report recognises, many of these difficulties come about because people are in the system for so long. It can begin to feel very difficult for families in the system that have not had their cases heard. It is clear that the uncertainty is extremely difficult for people who have been in the system for lengthy periods of time. We have to deal with that. There are approximately 4,500 people in the system. At present, there is no accommodation for approximately 600 families that have been deemed to be asylum seekers. Clearly, the Government's broader investment in social housing will be part of the answer to the situation we are currently facing. I would say that this is a very big issue across Europe. Sweden is currently taking 80,000 people a year. Germany is taking 300,000 migrants. There is a need for a much broader programme of action at EU level, along the lines of that outlined in the EU action programme on migration, to begin to deal with this issue.
4. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the actions she has taken in view of the suicide of a serving member of An Garda Síochána; the steps taken to ensure the independence and integrity of the investigation; the timeframe for the completion of any investigation; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [27361/15]
View answerI have tabled this question following the very tragic death of Sergeant Michael Galvin. I would like to express my condolences to his wife Colette and his family. We should also bear in mind that the death of Ms Sheena Stewart is linked to this tragedy. I would like to pass on my condolences to her family too. I ask the Minister to outline the steps she has taken to ensure the independence and integrity of the investigation into the death of Sergeant Galvin at Ballyshannon Garda station. Could she also outline the timeframe for the completion of that investigation?
The Deputy has referred to the tragic death of a serving Garda member in County Donegal on 28 May 2015. Before I deal with the substance of his question, I would like to join him in expressing my deepest sympathies to the family, friends and many colleagues of the late Garda member, who have been so traumatised by this tragic death. Like the Deputy, I think it is important that I should not exclude from the expression of sympathy the family and friends of the young woman who tragically lost her life in a road traffic incident on 1 January 2015.
As Members know, the Garda member in question had been the subject of an investigation by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission into matters relating to Garda contact with a member of the public shortly before her death in the fatal road traffic incident. As a result of concerns raised following the death of the Garda member and following consultation with the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, which I am bound to do under the legislation, I decided to use the power available to me under the Garda Síochána Act 2005 to initiate an inquiry by an independent judicial figure into the conduct of the GSOC investigation.
I used section 109 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 for the first time. I wrote to the Chief Justice requesting her to invite a judge of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal or the High Court to conduct the inquiry. The Chief Justice invited Mr. Justice Frank Clarke of the Supreme Court to conduct the inquiry and he has accepted the invitation. I welcome that. The inquiry will examine the conduct of designated officers of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission in respect of its investigation into the contact which members of the Garda Síochána had with a person on 1 January 2015 prior to her death in a tragic road traffic incident. Section 109 allows the judge to conduct the inquiry in the manner he thinks proper and he has full judicial powers in doing so, including the power, if necessary, to enforce the attendance of witnesses or to compel the production of records.
Obviously, I have had no involvement with that inquiry. It is completely independent. The Supreme Court judge operates under the guidelines and will conduct the inquiry as he sees fit. I am anxious to give him the time required to carry out the inquiry but, given the circumstances, I expect that the result of the inquiry should be available to me in the short to medium term.
I and my party welcome the fact that Mr. Justice Frank Clarke has been appointed to carry out an independent judicial inquiry into this. It is appropriate following the call from the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors, AGSI, for such an inquiry.
A GSOC spokesman stated at the time that it often engaged in peer review, whereby it got sister organisations from outside the jurisdiction to peer review some of its case work. Is that still happening in respect of this case and others? If so, will the Minister outline how many peer reviews have happened and what was their outcome?
Also, GSOC says that Sergeant Galvin was cleared as part of its investigation, yet the file had to go to the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, for the DPP to make the ultimate decision in that regard. However, that was not communicated to Sergeant Galvin and the tragedy occurred. Has the Minister asked GSOC, or has GSOC said, if any new protocols have been put in place to prevent something like this from happening again?
The Deputy's first question was about peer review. Once this tragic death occurred and the case came under scrutiny, GSOC immediately initiated a peer review and had taken the first steps in that. That was the right thing to do. The peer review system regarding Garda complaints is well established, whereby somebody from outside GSOC staff and from another system is brought in to conduct an analysis. That was an excellent first step in terms of GSOC's response to the situation. I met with GSOC, as I am obliged to do under the legislation. My decision at that point was that this was not enough and that section 109 should be used, so the peer review does not continue as a result. Peer review has been used by GSOC at different times, but I do not have the number of times with me.
The Deputy's second question was about protocols and referring cases. GSOC has a practice of referring cases where a death has occurred to the DPP before it refers back to the people who have been under investigation. Obviously there were particular circumstances in this case.
GSOC made that fact public as a result of the tragic circumstances. That has been its approach, however, because while it may believe no further action is needed, it is still required to forward the case file to the Director of Public Prosecutions for its view.
People understand that the Director of Public Prosecutions makes the final call in this type of case. Should the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission not establish a protocol providing that, in cases in which it submits a file to the DPP making a recommendation that there is no case to answer, as occurred in the case of Sergeant Galvin, its decision will be immediately communicated to the person who was under investigation? This would at least give the person comfort in the knowledge that the investigating body was satisfied with the outcome of the investigation. At the same time, it is acknowledged that it is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions to make the formal decision on the case.
Arising from the tragic case of Sergeant Galvin, has a three-way discussion taken place between the Minister, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and An Garda Síochána given the history of friction between GSOC and the Garda? While the relationship between these bodies had been improving, this case will have set back recent progress. In the interest of promoting confidence in the Garda and GSOC, the working relationship needs to be as good as possible.
I welcome the Deputy's point regarding the importance of the relationship between the Garda Síochána and Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. Both sides have work to do regarding complaints, and they must work together.
On the Deputy's question concerning the point at which persons under investigation should be informed of the outcome of the investigation, this is a complex issue. As it arises in the case we are discussing, I would prefer to leave any further comment on the matter to the inquiry being conducted by the Supreme Court judge. It may well be one of the issues addressed in the report of the inquiry, although I do not know one way or another whether that is the case. As it is a possibility, I will await the findings of the report.
The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission clearly took a particular approach to this issue. In cases involving a death, GSOC prefers to await the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions before giving the information to a person under investigation, given the possibility that the DPP will arrive at a different decision.
5. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if she will report on discussions with her counterparts in the European Union regarding the situation facing migrants entering the European Union via the Mediterranean. [27089/15]
View answerI ask the Minister to report on discussions with her European colleagues on the circumstances facing migrants attempting to enter the European Union via the Mediterranean. I ask the question in the context of the thousands of deaths among those trying to enter the EU, as well as the report on the RTE programme "This Week" broadcast on Sunday last, which obtained a briefing document setting out the position to be taken by the Minister on this issue, which, if accurate, can only be described as callous and uncaring.
I will deal first with the Deputy's second point. Ireland has never voiced opposition to search and rescue missions at European Union level, nor was I or any other Minister ever advised to do so. Internal briefing pointed to one of the unintended consequences of such operations, namely, the risk of more smuggling activity in even more dangerous and unseaworthy vessels. There was no question of Ireland or any Ministers being in any way at odds with our European colleagues on this matter. There were concerns about how best to deal with people smuggling and traffickers and the risk of taking any action that would encourage the smugglers to abuse more vulnerable people and place them in unseaworthy vessels. These concerns remain. Some 200,000 people will be placed in such vessels this year and will land at various ports or be rescued at sea.
The European Union has six or seven naval ships in the Mediterranean, including the LE Eithne, which is carrying out search and rescue operations. On one occasion, the LE Eithne rescued 650 migrants from dangerous boats, which can only travel for about 20 km once they have been put to sea. Approximately 15% of the people rescued are women.
One of those rescued just a few weeks ago by the naval ship was a four-week-old baby. These people are being exploited and, of course, the first thing we have to do is save them.
As Deputy Paul Murphy said, the number of deaths rose to record levels in April, but have since dropped off very significantly in May and June as a consequence of the enhanced search and rescue activity by EU member states. We now have a bilateral arrangement with Italy which allows our naval vessel to go down into those waters. We are not party to the Schengen Agreement and there was no legal competence to go down to the Mediterranean at EU level until the recent agreement was made.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
LE Eithne has already rescued more than 3,000 migrants. The situation in the Mediterranean is a major priority at EU level. The consensus both from the emergency joint meeting of EU Foreign and Interior Affairs Ministers in April, attended by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and myself, and the special European Council, attended by the Taoiseach a few days later, was that the EU needed to take urgent action on a wide number of fronts. The European Council conclusions from 23 April laid down clear guidelines on what actions were necessary. These focused on strengthening Europe's presence at sea, fighting traffickers in accordance with international law, preventing illegal migration flows and reinforcing internal solidarity and responsibility.
On 13 May 2015, the European Commission published the European agenda on migration, setting out a combination of immediate actions and longer term strategies. This was followed by more specific measures on resettlement and relocation; an action plan against migrant smuggling and guidelines on implementing the eurodac regulation. The two Commission proposals receiving most attention are those on the resettlement of 20,000 refugees and the relocation of 40,000 asylum seekers in clear need of international protection from Italy and Greece to other member states, where their protection applications will be examined. These measures, in particular the latter, were the main focus of discussion at the recent Justice and Home Affairs Council, which I attended on 15-16 June. At that meeting, there were significant differences on the question of mandatory relocation quotas for member states and some also had difficulties with the share attributed to them. The European Council returned to this theme in June, as agreed, and while the discussions were lengthy and difficult, they were also constructive. The Council conclusions focus on three distinct pillars, relocation and resettlement, return and readmission, and co-operation with countries of origin and transit. It includes an agreement to help 60,000 vulnerable people, through a mixture of resettlement and relocation. Relocation will be exceptional and temporary and will be achieved on the basis of a voluntary distribution plan. This plan will be agreed by consensus between member states by the end of July.
Ireland's position articulated most recently by the Taoiseach at the European Council and by me at the Justice and Home Affairs Council is one of support for solidarity which we were demonstrating in a number of ways. Ireland responded almost immediately by agreeing to take 300 refugees for resettlement in addition to the 220 we were already committed to taking. This puts us close to double the share we were being asked to take in the Commission proposal. Clearly, our substantial humanitarian aid and the work of the LE Eithne are further demonstrations of our solidarity. On the question of relocation, we have indicated that we are willing to give the issue careful consideration as an emergency once-off measure. Ireland is not bound by the proposal in view of the protocol to the treaties on our position regarding the area of freedom, justice and security. Ireland would have to opt in to the measure and this would require Oireachtas approval before we could take part. Realistically, given the timing and the need to see how the proposal evolves before making a decision, any exercise of Ireland's option in this respect would have to be made after the measure had been adopted at EU level. Ireland is also one of many member states to emphasise the importance of addressing the root causes of migration in an holistic and comprehensive way.
The Minister accepts that the number of deaths has decreased since Operation Mare Nostrum was reinstated. It is a search and rescue operation as opposed to an operation emphasising border control, which characterised Operation Triton. Does the Minister therefore agree that the cancellation of Operation Mare Nostrum was likely responsible for the deaths of migrants attempting to enter the European Union? The reported advice to the Minister that the migrant crisis had little direct impact on Ireland and no intervention was anticipated at the meeting is quite incredible. Should the Irish Government not have intervened against the calls of others, including, reportedly, Britain, for the cancellation of Operation Mare Nostrum to say we should not have a fortress-Europe policy where this is treated as a defence issue, but should adopt instead a humanitarian approach to saving people's lives? What position did Ireland take in the discussions that took place around the question of the cancellation of Operation Mare Nostrum?
As I have said, all countries across Europe expressed serious concern about the situation that has faced and continues to face all member states. Responding in the best possible way was on everyone's mind. Clearly, there were humanitarian issues. No one wants to see even one person lost at sea in these circumstances. How does one deal effectively with people traffickers and smugglers who are ruthless and putting people into these boats? There is a concern still shared by some member states that having a response in the area is sending the message to the smugglers to put more people into those boats. Clearly, the European action programme on migration envisages more work with countries in Africa, more co-operation, more border controls, which is are very important, and a whole range of other actions that must be taken. Obviously, the humanitarian response of saving lives is critical. That is what is being done and Ireland is one of six countries which is involved in the search and rescue operation.
Did the Irish Government intervene at the time of the debate around Operation Mare Nostrum to say search and rescue operations should be maintained? The smugglers are obviously dealers in death and should be condemned, but they are not the essential reason people are travelling. People are travelling because they are in conditions of extreme poverty, are desperate and are trying to enter the European Union to have a better life. I do not accept that search and rescue missions inadvertently assist criminal gangs and encourage less seaworthy vessels. People are going to travel to try to access Europe as long as their economies are destroyed and they are subject to wars, all of which the European Union more generally has a hand in. Does the Minister have a comment on the fact that the position paper outlined that Ireland should press for longer-term solutions such as requiring neighbouring states to include in trade agreements with the EU conditions on stopping migration to the Union? That is a repeat of the outsourcing of the militarisation of Europe's borders further beyond Europe as was done with Colonel Gadaffi whereby these people are paid money to keep migrants away. Is that really the answer? Should we not be trying to improve conditions in North Africa and the Middle East so that people do not feel the need to travel in such dangerous vessels?
The Deputy is right that the conditions in those countries have to be improved.
The vast majority of migrants coming through now come from quite a range of countries but many come from Syria and Eritrea. Clearly, the breakdown of governance - the conflict situations - are the root causes of the problem. The Deputy is absolutely right that greater global work needs to be done to deal with those conflict situations and to ensure that there is governance in those countries in order that people are not as vulnerable as they clearly are at present.
Ireland being outside the Schengen Agreement is in a different position. However, I certainly have been very strong in saying that we want to respond in a humanitarian manner. We immediately responded to the request for resettlement of Syrian and Eritrean refugees when we were asked to do so some months ago. We are taking slightly above the numbers requested. We have resettled approximately 2,000 people during the past ten years. That has happened where people have been assessed as refugees. We have also received a new request for the relocation of refugees which we now have to consider.
