Gay Mitchell
Ceist:9 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if the issue of immigrants to the EU and to individual member states has been considered recently at the General Affairs Council of the EU. [4301/00]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Immigrants to the EU.
The issue of immigrants to the EU and to individual member states has not been discussed at recent meetings of the General Affairs Council.
Related issues which were dealt with at the GAC over the past year concerned the High Level Working Group on Asylum and Migration, the preparations for the Tampere European Council and the adoption of a joint action on the reception and voluntary repatriation of refugees.
At the meeting of the GAC in January 1999 the mandate for the High Level Working Group on Asylum and Migration, was agreed and at the June and October meetings of the GAC reports from this HLWG were approved. The main feature of the high level working group's work was to concentrate on the countries which are giving rise to the greatest problems and to see how the situation could be improved by taking measures in relation to those countries and with their co-operation. Having agreed the priority list of countries, the HLWG proceeded with the presentation of an action plan to tackle each country. The plans comprised an analysis of the causes of the influx from the countries, the possibility of strengthening economic co-operation with them, the identification of needs for humanitarian aid and the situation as regards re-admission agreements with the countries. The list of countries which the HLWG focused on was Afghanistan/ Pakistan, Albania – and the neighbouring region – Morocco, Somalia and Sri Lanka. The HLWG was also tasked to review the existing action plan for Iraq as well. The final report of the HLWG was submitted to the Tampere European Council.
At the General Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 26 April, 1999 a joint action on the reception and the voluntary repatriation of refugees was approved. The joint action established measures to provide practical support in relation to the reception and the voluntary repatriation of refugees, displaced persons and asylum applicants, including emergency assistance to persons who fled as a result of events in Kosovo.
The GAC was intimately involved in the preparations of the special European summit in Tampere last October and the issue was discussed at a number of GACs last year. The Deputy will be aware that the meeting in Tampere was the first occasion the heads of State and Government dedicated a summit to the issues of justice and home affairs and that one of the core agenda items concerned the development of a common EU asylum and migration policy. In this context the Commission has been asked to bring forward proposals to allow for the establishment of a common European asylum system. The system is to include clear rules as to the State responsible for processing asylum applications, the common standards for processing applications and receiving asylum seekers. It will also seek to codify refugee status and subsidiary forms of temporary protection.
Given that the Government has decided, for example, not to receive the Austrian ambassador and has generally joined other Governments in criticising the formation of the Austrian Government, does the Minister agree that we have some nerve to take that step when the Austrian state has been dealing with a large influx of immigrants – which in part has given rise to the political change there – when we have a relatively small number of immigrants and are constantly rushing in, sometimes through the back door, more and more legislation to deal with the situation in an unacceptable manner? Is there not an element of double standard and hypocrisy involved in this?
The Government rejects the tone of much of what the freedom party has had to say on the issue. It is obviously offensive and racist. While I am aware of some of the positions taken, I note the new Austrian situation in its programme for Government committed itself to the enlargement process. In addition, the new Austrian Chancellor, as Foreign Minister in the last Government, was closely involved in the enlargement process and commitments had already been undertaken by Austria. Thus I would not expect any substantial change in Austria's position on enlargement.
The Minister is aware of my condemnation in the House of some of the more outrageous things said by the Freedom Party and I reiterate that condemnation. Given that 27% of the population in Austria voted the way they did, for many reasons not connected to what Jorg Haider outrageously said, does the Minister agree it is not good policy for the Government to continue to refuse to receive the Austrian ambassador who is here to represent the State and the duly elected Government of Austria? When will this boycott end and normal relations recommence on a bilateral basis between EU member states, particularly between Ireland and Austria?
That issue is not raised in this question. Good work has been done so far. We participated in a very significant way in the Tampere conference and significant progress has been made. I do not wish to go into the specific Austrian situation any further.
Does the Minister agree that part of the solution to the problem, in so far as it is a problem with immigrants in the European Union, stems from the fact that many people are economic refugees? They simply cannot make a living in their homes. Does he agree that some of this problem is connected to my earlier question relating to the need for wealthier EU states, particularly states such as Ireland and the larger EU states, to invest in these regions to try to give people an opportunity to eke out a living in their natural homes? Can the Minister see the connection between the two? Is this part of consideration of the immigrant issue?
I do not necessarily see the connection between the two. It is fair to say Ireland has played a significant role in development work in many respects in those regions and will continue to do so. I cannot see why there should be specific links between the two areas.
That concludes Priority Questions. We now come to ordinary questions to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I remind the House of the time limits governing the questions – six minutes for ordinary questions, two minutes for the Minister to reply and one minute, maximum, for supplementary questions and replies to supplementary questions.