The committee is to hear a briefing by the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs with special responsibility for European Affairs, on the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting next Thursday. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, on this the first occasion he has been here in his ministerial capacity. I also welcome the officials . I thank the Minister of State for appearing at short notice and it is appreciated by the committee.
Home Affairs Council Meeting: Ministerial Presentation.
I apologise to the committee on behalf of the Minister who is unavoidably absent. I am accompanied by Mr. Paul Byrne, Mr. David Costello, Ms Margaret O'Connor and Mr. Richard Ryan from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss with members the agenda for the forthcoming Justice and Home Affairs Council. As the committee will have noted, it is a one-day meeting with a very full agenda.
The main items on the agenda relate to the asylum and immigration areas. There are also, however, a number of items regarded by many administrations as "justice" matters. The committee has been provided with information notes on the matters listed on the agenda but I would like to comment briefly on the matters tabled for discussion.
The first item for discussion relates to the outcome of the Brussels European Council meeting which was held on 16 and 17 October. Members of the committee have been provided with the report of the European Council which included a number of conclusions in the asylum and immigration area. The JHA Council is expected to focus on the current state of play on readmission agreements.
The proposal for a Council directive on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status is at an advanced stage of discussion and the Thessaloniki European Council has set a deadline of 31 December 2003 for its adoption. Discussion will centre on the outstanding concerns of member states which include the appeals procedures and the safe third countries issue. Both Ireland and the UK have opted in to this proposal. There will be a report on the outcome of a seminar which took place in Rome last month on the issue of a more orderly and managed entry into the EU of persons in need of international protection. This seminar which was attended by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform was organised to discuss issues of protected entry procedures and resettlement in the EU of those persons in need of international protection. The seminar is intended to inform ongoing work on this issue in the Council framework which is required to report back to the European Council on the subject next year during the Irish Presidency.
The next item on the agenda will be the proposal for a Council directive on the short-term residency permit issued to victims of trafficking in human beings or to third-country nationals who have been subjects of an action to facilitate illegal immigration who co-operate with the competent authorities. The proposal seeks to introduce a short-term residence permit for third-country nationals who, having been victims of an offence of facilitating illegal immigration or trafficking in human beings, co-operate in the fight against the perpetrators of these offences. Ireland has not exercised its option to participate in this proposed directive under the Fourth Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam.
Discussions will then turn to the decision on the signature of an Agreement between the European Union and Norway and Iceland in the area of mutual legal assistance. This decision authorises signature of the Agreement which will apply certain provisions of the EU 2000 Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance and its 2001 Protocol to Norway and Iceland. The Council is being asked to reach a general approach on the text of the draft Council decision with a view to adopting it at its next meeting on 27 and 28 November 2003.
In the civil law area, the proposal for a Council directive on compensation to victims of crime will be discussed. An orientation debate is to take place on a number of issues raised by the Italian Presidency. These relate to the scope of the proposed directive in terms of the offences and categories of persons to whom it should apply, the circumstances in which compensation would be payable and whether provisions could be made for a ceiling on the amount of compensation payable.
The Council will then meet in its Mixed Committee formation, a Schengen-related formation where discussion will again focus on the immigration area with further debate on the conclusions of the Brussels European Council on managing the Union's common borders and controlling migratory flows. This item will cover the establishment of the European Border Management Agency and the work programme to combat illegal immigration through the sea borders.
The Mixed Committee will also discuss two proposals dealing with the issue of return of illegal immigrants. The first is a proposed measure on compensation for the financial imbalances resulting from the mutual recognition of decision on expulsion. The second is an Italian Presidency initiative on the organisation of joint flights for removals from the territory of two or more member states, of third country nationals who are the subject of individual removal orders. The JHA Council hopes to achieve general agreement on both of these proposals at the meeting this week. On the joint flights initiative, Government approval to opt in to the measure has been obtained and we hope to seek approval from both Houses of the Oireachtas in the near future.
The Mixed Committee will also discuss the Draft Framework Decision on the application of the "non bis in idem” principle. The initiative provides for application of the principle whereby a person shall not be prosecuted twice for the same offence throughout the European Union, Norway and Iceland. On this occasion the Council is being asked to decide on a number of questions relating to exceptions to the application of the principle.
The agenda for the Council also includes a number of A items which will be adopted by the Council without discussion. Material on these items has been included in the information notes provided to the committee and I do not propose to offer any further comments at this point on these items.
This is a full and varied agenda covering a wide range of issues across a number of JHA areas. I look forward to the committee's comments and queries on this agenda. The Council will then meet in its Mixed Committee formation, a Schengen-related formation where discussion will again focus on the immigration area with further debate on the conclusions of the Brussels European Council on managing the Union's common borders and controlling migratory flows. This item will cover the establishment of the European Border Management Agency and the work programme to combat illegal immigration through the sea borders.
I welcome Deputy John Bruton who has been a member of the Convention on Europe and a member of the praesidium of the convention.
I apologise for speaking ahead of full members of the committee but as my party is marginally the largest party in Opposition I feel I should exercise that prerogative. I wish to ask some questions about the agenda. Am I correct in believing that the proposal on residency permits for victims of trafficking is probably the only directive that is likely to be adopted at this meeting, that the other matters are unlikely to have agreement reached on them this week?
On the question of the minimum standards of procedures for asylum and for refugees will the Minister of State inform the committee of the present position regarding a list of so-called safe counties to which people can be returned on the grounds that they are not at risk in those countries? Will the Minister of State inform the committee which are the safe countries and the unsafe countries? Am I correct in believing that the issue that remains to be agreed is what should be the nature of the right of appeal against a negative decision to grant refugee status? Will the Minister of State outline the positions being taken by Ireland and by the other countries on the question of such a right of appeal?
On the issue of the compensation of crime victims, I have just received a copy of the proposal. I am sure it has been in circulation for quite some time but I have only now had sight of it. This document is dated 17 October 2003. Is it the case that there is agreement on the part of Ireland that a legal basis exists in the treaties for undertaking this proposal? Is this something that is provided for in the existing treaties, that the European Union has competence to enter into this area?
If one is speaking about the compensation of victims of crime, one must ask who is going to pay the compensation. In my attempted speed reading of this document I understand it to state that the article gives member states the right to make State compensation subsidiary to compensation from the offender. The reality is that in the case of the most serious and most life-threatening crimes the likelihood is that the offenders will not have the financial means of compensating the victim. How will that be overcome? Will it be obligatory under this directive for Ireland to introduce a large compensation scheme which would have substantial financial implications? What is the view of the Irish Government? How will the level of awards be identified? At present there are very wide variations in the amounts given in compensation for non-criminal injury. In some countries if one loses a leg it is worth ten times what losing a leg in another country is worth and in some countries there is no lump sum compensation but simply support for the person in terms of social security. How will it be possible to agree on a common standard of compensation? Is this matter resolved or is it resolvable?
I understand that there may be on the Council agenda, although perhaps not on the agenda of this meeting, a proposal for the payment of uncontested claims from one jurisdiction to a beneficiary in another. It seems to me that is something that does not raise any of the difficulties that are adverted to on the levels of compensation payable for criminal injury. These are uncontested claims and I suggest to the Minister of State that this should be a matter of priority for agreement.
Is it the case that the Council is considering a proposal which would allow Ireland to reintroduce border controls in association with any major summit meetings that may be held here? I understand one of the proposals being considered on the agenda for the next Council meeting after this, is the exchange of personal data between member states with a view to the reintroduction of border controls in the context of European Council or other events; in other words, to stop the protest industry that travels from one important international meeting to another. In view of the impending Irish Presidency is the Irish Government supportive of this proposal or not?
Is it the case that there is a proposal for a framework decision on the mutual recognition of decisions aimed at the obtaining of evidence? This would be a very important proposal if it could be agreed because evidence-gathering is of great importance. If the recognition and collection of evidence could be standardised it would be of great assistance in the facilitation of the pursuit of internationally organised crime.
I welcome the Minister of State and his team. I am somewhat unhappy with the presentation by the Minister of State and I know it is no fault of his because he is stepping in at short notice. This is the briefest of summaries of a vast body of documentation that has been presented to the committee. In my view it is the committee's function to scrutinise matters that are coming before the Council meeting on 6 November. To enable it to do so it should be given some indication of the position being adopted by the Minister in his arguments in Brussels on each of these issues rather than a simple brief summary of the text of the documents. I do not know where the Minister proposes going on these matters.
The last matter we discussed in detail concerned the mutual agreement between the European Union countries and the United States. We made a number of recommendations that we will be discussing tomorrow. However, these do not seem to be properly reflected in amendments to the text. We need a better idea of where the Minister is coming from rather than he simply responding to occasional questions asked here.
In future, as well as getting the briefest summary of the document, we should get some indication of the thrust of how the Minister will deal with those documents. The Minister will put a case to his peers at the Council and will argue on behalf of the Government in that matter. We would like to know the position he will adopt in his argument. From these documents, I do not know what way he is arguing and whether he is in favour of or against any item. Without having to try to tease it out through questions, I would like to have this information in advance. As well as getting the bulk of the documentation, it would be desirable to get in writing the Minister's summary and an outline of his approach in advance of the meeting, so that we have the opportunity to study it and determine whether we are satisfied rather than having to do it on the hoof here face-to-face with the Minister.
The first document arises from the meeting of 16 and 17 October and covers the Presidency conclusions on the position to be adopted on the expanding of the Union's borders. A border management is proposed. How will this operate on land and sea? Next year the Union will increase substantially from 15 to 25 members. As an island, we have a greater burden in trying to control drug trafficking, human trafficking and other activities. How is this aspect incorporated in the border management agency?
I do not know whether the Minister has received a document from Amnesty International outlining its concerns over the council directive and the minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status. I would welcome a response to these serious concerns. Deputy Bruton asked what the safe countries that will be listed are. When he goes there in two days, about what countries will the Minister be talking? Will he talk about countries like Japan and the United States that still have the death penalty? Are they safe countries? Will we get the list of safe countries from the Minister, as we do not have them here? We would like to have the list before us rather than trying to elicit it through questioning.
There are concerns over the border procedures for entering another country's territory and the procedures on access points. There are concerns over remedies before a court or tribunal. It is important to ensure the section which deals with minimum standards is not in any way in breach of the Geneva Convention or other international conventions, bearing in mind our undertakings on asylum seekers and refugee status.
Many working parties have been established, including working parties on migration and expulsion; terrorism and police co-operation. Are these simply to be nodded through? Are these working parties integrated? What will happen in the working party on terrorism? An extremely wide-ranging Bill to address terrorism is already before the House. We have a European Union directive that we are supposed to transpose into our law and now all of a sudden there is a new working party on terrorism. Are we putting the cart before the horse?
I would like to know more about how the European police colleges will operate. What level of co-operation will take place? How will this affect the recently approved legislation that allows co-operation between the Garda Síochána and the PSNI?
Deputy Bruton mentioned compensation for crime victims. What will be the level of compensation? We have had difficulty determining this here. It would be interesting to know what angle the Minister proposes taking on this matter in a European context. Given that we do not even know what the situation in our own country is, I would like to know where the Minister is coming from when he argues his case in Europe.
I have sympathy for the point made by the Deputy. Some 45% of the work in Council meetings affects the justice and home affairs area, which seems to be expanding exponentially. It is very difficult to get one's head around the brief. I will try to address the points raised by the Deputies and we can return to anything my reply is deficient.
Deputy Bruton asked what would be completed this week. The most likely matter to be completed this week is the proposal for a Council directive on a residence permit issued to third country nationals who are victims of trafficking. As members will know the objective is to introduce a residence permit for third country nationals who have been victims of an offence or who are facilitating in the process of going against those involved in human trafficking.
Will Ireland exercise its option to participate in that proposed directive?
When the directive is finalised, a Government decision and Oireachtas approval will be required.
What recommendation will the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform make?
I am told that it is likely to be positive.
The second item likely to be formally finalised and adopted is item 3 on the mixed agenda, the Council Directive 2001/40/EC adopted on 28 May 2001, which allows authorities in a member state, Norway and Iceland to recognise and enforce expulsion decisions made in other member states. Ireland has opted into the directive as part of our option to take up certain aspects of the Schengen Agreement.
Deputies Bruton and Costello both touched on the issue of safe countries of origin. Deputy Costello mentioned the document circulated last night by Amnesty International. As this document was only circulated last night, I have very little detail of it, but I will give what I have. Members of the committee will be aware that we have a list of safe countries of origin, which is covered in the Refugee Act 1996. It has been operative since 15 September. The designated states, which have been outlined in the order made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, are the accession countries, Bulgaria and Romania. While this is fully compliant with the criteria of the UNHCR, I believe there is come critical comment in the Amnesty document.
What are the safe countries outside Europe?
We do not have any. Under the Refugee Act 1996, the ones that are designated as per the list issued as recently as 15 September, are the accession states plus Bulgaria and Romania. There are none outside Europe.
Will we oppose any others that might be proposed at the meeting?
No. The second part of the question relates to what will happen within the EU. The EU list of safe countries of origin is being prepared; there is no list at present. There is no agreement on what states would be on the EU list. We are only starting to consider a list within the EU.
There are four fundamental points in the Amnesty International document: a common minimum list of safe countries of origin; border procedures; appeals procedures and appeals having suspensive effect. While there is not a definitive position, the directive provides for drawing up a common EU list of safe countries and there should be no difficulty with that. The criteria being adopted reflect the criteria in our national law. We have already designated the accession countries and Bulgaria and Romania. I understand Amnesty International does not favour the safe country of origin approach to refugees. However, in that it is out of step with the UNHCR, which accepts the process. Amnesty International's concerns are covered by the EU directives. However, at this stage I can understand that Amnesty International wants to set the bar at a high level. As this is only at a formative stage, one cannot quibble with it.
The directives provide for special arrangements at borders to deal with applicants for asylum. We are still teasing out those issues. This is mainly of interest to countries such as Germany, with land borders with some of the accession states. From my visits, I am aware of concerns about some of the new accession states and the degree to which the German border will be porous.
The directive proposes access to an effective remedy of appeal before a tribunal or court on facts as defined by national legislation. I do not fully understand Amnesty International's view that this is too restrictive and that an appeals body must have the jurisdiction to examine all facts and points of law. Amnesty International's concerns are met in our national law and in the refugee appeals tribunal proposals we have. Amnesty International's comments are made in the wider context of Europe as a whole.
Amnesty International is of the view that all appeals must have a suspensive effect and applicants must have the right to remain in the territory of the member state while an appeal is being considered. While the directive provides that suspensive effect is generally the rule, it provides a certain number of exceptions - these are unfounded applications - to have a non-suspensive effect provided a court or a tribunal can decide a person can remain on the territory of the state while an appeal is being considered. We generally agree with that approach. It is difficult to be definitive at this stage on the final points, as they have not been put to the Minister. I have been as comprehensive as I can.
Deputy Bruton raised an item not on the agenda, the reintroduction of border controls. As I understand it, this item only applies to the Schengen states with free movement across their borders. Ireland and the UK maintain border controls at the moment and we would not take a position on Schengen countries' free movement. I believe this was the point to which Deputy Bruton referred, but I may have picked him up wrong.
There is an unresolved issue surrounding the legal basis of the directive. The council's legal service has stated that, based on article 308 of the treaty on European Union, provisions on cross-border access to victims' compensation could only apply to the extent that compensation schemes already exist under the respective national laws, which is not the case for two member states, Italy and Greece.
I seek clarification on what that means. Is the Minister saying that a person injured in a country where he or she was a non-citizen would have a right to get compensation if that country has a compensation scheme? However, a person in another EU country, which does not have a compensation scheme, would not be entitled to it.
I believe the Deputy is correct. As I understand it the Office of the Attorney General has provided the view that article 308 of the European Union is an appropriate legal base for the propositions.
I agree with Deputy Costello's point about the vast amount of documentation. I have sympathy with members of this and other committees. It is ironic, coming the week after we were excoriated in our national media, that this committee meeting will get very little coverage today on RTE, despite the substantial amount of money that so-called public broadcasting service gets in licence fees. These matters are complex and do not lend themselves to tabloid coverage. While I have not appeared before this committee, I sympathise with the members and I know the effort they put in.
Deputy Costello asked about the agreement between the EU and the US on mutual legal assistance and extradition. The Deputy asked what the position of the Government was and when would there be a statement. This matter will be debated in the Dáil and I believe officials will appear before this committee.
I raised this matter, as I would like to know the Minister's position on the various issues before he goes to Brussels.
He is probably waiting to hear the other contributions before making up his mind.
I have no doubt he will do that. However, when he comes back from Brussels we would like to think that he has listened to the contributions and they are reflected. However, we need to have some idea of the thrust of his remarks on some of the issues before us. We have not seen this in any documentation he has given us.
Can the Minister of State get into the mind of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform?
Unfortunately not from this remove. Skilled as I am in these matters, I would prefer not to venture into the Minister's mind. I appreciate the point Deputy Costello is making. This is a challenge that we have discussed at other committees. Given the pace of events, trying to have a position that is final beforehand is very difficult. In an attempt to be as helpful as possible to the Deputies, the officials will be available to answer questions. Clearly before any final position comes into Irish law, it will have to be discussed at this committee and in the Houses of the Oireachtas.
The Deputy also spoke about the police colleges.
We need to consider minimum standards and procedures for withdrawing refugee status. Amnesty International is very critical of some elements of this document. Does the Minister propose amending this draft document in any way by insertion or deletion? Does he even have a general view of whether this document is a satisfactory statement of the Irish position and will get his imprimatur?
It is a simple question.
As the Amnesty International document only became available last night, it is not reasonable to expect a final and definitive response at this point.
That is a different point.
As the question was specific to the document, I am giving an answer to that. As everyone knows, final negotiation positions are very much a factor of the dynamic of a particular meeting. I have given a very comprehensive answer on the specific issues raised in the document. Final positions are taken during the course of negotiations in council meetings and are very much determined by that. I do not know how widely the Amnesty International document has been circulated. I take any document from that organisation very seriously. I have given a comprehensive response to the four issues it raised: a common minimum list of safe countries of origin; border procedures; appeals procedures; and appeals having suspensive effect. I apologise if the Deputy thought my response was deficient in any way.
The directive provides for the drawing up of a common EU list of safe countries. I have given the Irish position, which could not be more definitive; it covers the accession states plus Bulgaria and Romania. The Minister settled this last month under Irish law. I cannot be more definitive than that.
The Minister of State should finish responding to the members' question and then I will call Deputy Bruton again.
Deputy Costello mentioned the police college. This is essentially a network of police training colleges in Europe, which I presume produces joint programmes. Ireland is represented on the board by the assistant commissioner of the Garda Síochána. The college was established in 2000 and it is not a new initiative.
What about the PSNI? Is it represented or do we represent it there?
I am sure we would represent them excellently, but I am equally certain we are not doing so.
In preparing for this meeting yesterday I discovered the Italian Presidency publishes on the Internet the agenda of this week's meeting, the meeting at the end of November and the meeting at the beginning of December. Given that it is available in the public domain, it would be useful to have at least the agenda circulated to Members of the Oireachtas, so that we are not taken completely by surprise when receiving documents here on the day of the meeting.
I asked the Minister of State many questions and understandably he did not answer them all. I will ask some again. In response to my question about compensation for crime victims, the Minister answered by saying there is a legal basis. Is the Minister in favour of a directive on this matter? How will the amount of compensation be calculated?
I also asked the Minister about a Council directive on professional disqualification of condemned persons. I presume this means that people who have been condemned for drunk driving in Ireland would not be able to drive in France, or people condemned for having been an unfit director of a company in Ireland would not be fit to be a company director in Italy. This seems a very sensible proposal. According to the website this is to be on the agenda for this week's meeting. Is this the case and what is the view of the Irish Government on this matter?
The Commission has conducted a feasibility study on sea border control - in other words on a European coastguard. John Cushnahan MEP has been pressing for this for years. This would benefit Ireland as we have a huge coastal border to patrol with a very limited tax base to support that huge control. What is the view of the Government on this feasibility study? Who will finance the coastguard?
I asked the Minister about a proposed Council regulation on the enforcement of uncontested claims, which seems to be a very sensible proposal. It is flagged on the Italian Presidency website as being on the justice and home affairs agenda for the meeting of 27 and 28 November.
Is this an A item?
No, it is not an A item; I understand it is a substantive item. The same applies to the framework decision on the mutual recognition of decisions for obtaining evidence.
I wish to raise some additional points. In the Presidency conclusions of the Brussels Summit of 16 and 17 October, the heads of government are very strong in stressing the need for a common return policy in stating that the Council "reaffirms that a common return policy is a key element for an efficient and comprehensive immigration policy and invites the Council and the Commission to give the highest priority to the implementation of the action plan adopted in November 2002."
Do I take it that the European Council is unhappy with the progress made by the Ministers for justice in the matter of a return policy? Is it not the case that there is a difficulty with some countries that refuse to grant any concessions on immigration within the European Union? As a result the European Union negotiators have nothing to offer the third countries to which immigrants might be returned in return for those countries co-operating with a comprehensive return policy. One or two countries are holding the whole matter up. Will the Minister name and shame those countries? A comprehensive return policy would be in the interest of the Union as a whole. To be blunt is Britain holding this up? Is Ireland one of the countries holding up the negotiation of a common return policy?
There has been a communication from the Commission on immigration, integration and employment. I wish to focus specifically on the issue of integration of immigrants. The Commission paper stresses the need for the rights and obligations of immigrants in regard to integration. If one goes through the text, one will see that it is all about rights and that there is no question of obligations. Rights are mentioned in respect of the labour market, training, education and language skills, housing, health and social services. Such rights should be provided for. It seems to me, however, that experience in a number of countries, most notably France but also others, suggests that some immigrant communities make little or no effort to integrate themselves into the host country. Irish people who went to America sought to become totally integrated into American society and were successful as a result. Certain immigrant communities have not made an effort, even in the second and third generations, to integrate themselves into the community.
It seems to me that part of the problem is that host countries in Europe cannot make up their minds about what they should be trying to integrate the immigrants into. Existential questions, such as "Who are we?", "What is it to be Irish?" and "What are the inherent requirements of Irish civic responsibility?" have to be raised. If we cannot make up our minds about what we are - if we do not state what it is we are - it is very hard to help other people to integrate into us. There seems to be a large problem, which may be related to political correctness, in many European countries. In France, for example, one cannot say what it is to be French for fear of appearing to be prejudicial to people who are not French. It seems to me that as Europeans who are Irish or French, etc., we should be able to mention certain characteristics of a European society, such as participation in democracy, respect for the rule of law or respect for the separation of church and state. We should encourage people to integrate into that sense of Europeanness or Irishness.
Europeans seem to be embarrassed about facing up to these serious and profound political questions. Such embarrassment does not exist in the United States, which has been successful in becoming a melting pot and a land of opportunity for people from all over the world. The US can take in twice or three times as many immigrants as Europe because Americans are not ashamed to say, "If you become an American, we expect you to have a certain respect for the American flag; we expect you to have a certain familiarity with the US constitution and we expect you to become an American without giving up your ancestral pride or loyalty".
I would like to ask the Minister of State some questions, which I hope can be put to the Commissioner, Mr. Vitorino and others. Have we come to a consensus in Europe? Are we attempting to come to a consensus about the characteristics of a good European or a good Irish person who is also a European? I refer to those characteristics to which we would want to integrate into people over a generation or two. We want to inculcate such characteristics in people who are coming to live here. We would have had no problem with setting down such characteristics 20 or 30 years ago, when familiarity with the Irish language would have been required. We are not so clear in that regard now. Is a debate taking place on this subject?
Does the Minister of State have a philosophy on this matter?
Yes. I omitted to respond to a couple of points made by Deputy Costello.
Perhaps I can add another couple of points. I will have to go to the Dáil to ask a Private Notice Question at the conclusion of the Order of Business. Deputy John Bruton raised interesting questions about certain aspects of immigration. He asked who we are as individual member states and as Europeans. He mentioned the issue of integration. Since I have been involved with this committee, there seems to have been a shift in respect of European issues from an emphasis on drug trafficking and human trafficking to an emphasis on controlling immigrants and keeping them out. It seems to be more of a policing or control mechanism. We seem to have little to say about integration or immigration policy. We need to consider who comes here, how they come here and how we deal with them. Education deals with people in a lopsided manner.
Perhaps this is not the appropriate forum for a full discussion on this important issue. Deputy Bruton has raised the possibility of a fuller discussion. This country will assume the Presidency of the EU in less than two months. I do not know if the Government has decided on the theme of the Irish Presidency. I do not doubt that this issue bedevils the relationship between the citizens of this country and newcomers here. It has a similar effect on the relations between countries. We have not been able to come to terms with the matter, which could usefully be examined in terms of the immigration policy at European and Irish levels. We will have to start with the Irish policy. I would like us to spend some time on that with the Minister and people like Deputy Bruton who have been involved in the drafting of the new European constitution and in various fora.
Interesting philosophical issues have been discussed. It is a shame that Deputy Costello has to leave, as he has raised some interesting questions. The first response I wish to make is to state that Ireland's immigration arrangements are quite non-discriminatory. We have a liberal attitude, relative to other countries, to what constitutes a citizen of this State. We started to discuss the issue of what constitutes a European on a previous occasion. The matter has been raised by Deputy Bruton again today.
The EU will have 25 member states soon. The great strength of Europe is its vast diversity. There is no such thing as a single and homogenous identification. The US melting pot model is not the only model and I am not sure that it is the most successful model. I recall that when I was on a human rights fellowship in Canada many years ago, there was a significant philosophical debate about whether the US melting pot model was appropriate to Canada, where many new people were being introduced. It was argued that allowing people to retain some aspects of their own cultural uniqueness was enriching rather than otherwise. I do not disagree that there are philosophical issues, but I have to be terribly prosaic by pointing out that these issues are not on the agenda of the meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council. Perhaps they should be.
The issue of integration is touched on in the Commission's communication, which speaks about rights and obligations.
I do not want to quibble on this point, but it is not on the formal——
It deals with gender issues, which clearly affect certain immigrant groups that have a different view of the rights of women, for example.
Will there be a substantive discussion on this matter?
There will be a substantive discussion on it in the course of the Irish Presidency.
There may well be, but the point I am making is that I am here to brief the committee on Thursday's meeting. The matter is not on the agenda for Thursday's meeting.
It is in the round.
There is no better man than the Minister of State to answer on behalf of the Government on all topics.
That may be true, but I am slightly timorous about answering for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
I invite the Minister of State to conclude his remarks.
Certain member states have integration programmes, which include matters such as language. Other member states do not have such programmes. It is a controversial issue in some countries, but not in others. May I deal with some specific issues? Deputy John Bruton mentioned the crimes directive. The directive is on the agenda. I will have to plead the Fifth Amendment, so to speak, in that regard. It is an item for political discussion, rather than for definitive final decisions, on Thursday.
Is the Government for it or against it?
I will allow the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform answer that question. I will simply say that it is at a formative stage.
Touché.
Broad political discussions are under way. I will deal with what is written, rather than what is in the Minister's mind. Deputy John Bruton also touched on the framework directive for the recognition of evidence. I did not answer the queries about the directive. I understand that the Commission's work in this area is at a preliminary stage. I understand Deputy Bruton's interest in this area, having dealt with some of the issues in the Justice and Home Affairs Council working group. The Commission will have to produce a document on this matter in the coming months.
Deputy Costello asked about the border management agency, a matter that was touched on by the Chairman and Deputy Bruton. The draft proposals in the border management area have yet to be published. It is envisaged that there may be a role for an agency-type structure to co-ordinate community initiatives on the external borders of the Union. Deputy Bruton mentioned the European coastguard and issues that we discussed late at night at another location. I do not think the matter arises at this stage. It is a tiny bit premature.
It is on one of the agendas.
There is a work programme to combat illegal immigration at sea borders, etc. The goal is to improve actions being taken to combat illegal immigration across the maritime borders of the Union. Deputy Bruton is correct to assert that Ireland has a very specific interest in that matter. Ireland, like most northern member states, has not experienced significant clandestine or illegal migration at sea borders. Perhaps we should think ahead, but sea border migration is more of an issue for Mediterranean states, especially Italy. Illegal immigration through sea borders is a particularly serious issue in the eastern Mediterranean. It has also been experienced in the Canary Islands. Significant illegal migration by such means has been experienced in Italy and Spain. There have been many tragedies at sea. I know that the Italian Presidency is acutely aware of this problem, as one is faced with an horrific dilemma when people turn up on small islands. Deputy Bruton also mentioned the issue of uncontested claims, which is not on the agenda for this week's Council meeting. I think I have dealt with all six final issues.
I am sure that the Minister will let us know how matters went when he returns from the meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, if the committee wishes him to do so.
I think the Minister always does so. My impression of this committee is that it is comprehensive to a fault.
I am not sure I will be able to attend the next meeting. The Council agenda is flagged on the website of the Italian Presidency. It would be useful, therefore, if the relevant directives that have been flagged right up to the end of the year could be circulated to all members.
The Deputy touched on that matter, but I did not deal with it. The flagging of items on the website is very much a work in progress. It is always the case that it is not the final agenda for meetings of the Justice and Home Affairs Council. I understand Deputy Bruton's point that members would have more time to read into the brief if they had advance notice of the agenda. In light of the points made by Deputy Costello, it would be a disservice to the committee to respond to something we know will be changed. We should not flood the committee with briefing material and then do so again after the agenda has changed. I accept it is a dilemma.
Given the amount of work that has been ongoing in the area of Justice and Home Affairs and in order to be fair to the Italian Presidency, I should note that the Presidency is trying to provide some coherence. The committee can take up this matter with the Minister when he attends here. It would be a disservice to the committee to respond to ad hoc proposals. I do not want to say they are from the top of one’s head, but they are works in progress. This committee does an extraordinary amount of work in respect of the hardest brief to cover. We would be doing the committee a disservice if we were to flood it.
Is the Minister of State saying there is no paper in circulation in respect of some of the items that are flagged on the agenda?
I think that is the case. Material is in circulation in other cases. There are working groups and background drafting material in other cases. It would be a tremendous disservice. Perhaps this should be discussed with the Ministers. The committee might find time to study key themes that run through that from time to time. It is very hard to see how it can fit in an additional workload.
It was mentioned earlier that 45% of the work of this committee relates to the Justice and Home Affairs Council. It is obvious that the volume of paper will be the same. We do not have the staff to get such a volume of paper to every member of the committee. We will have to be selective. The secretariat is very helpful and co-operative. If any member wants copies of any document, the Clerk to the committee will more then willing to supply them.
I am sure that the Department and the Minister, Deputy McDowell, will be delighted to help in any way. This suggestion could cause many difficulties for the committee, which is already over-stretched. There may be many difficulties in working on the draft agenda for two meetings hence.
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Roche, for attending this meeting. I thank his officials for the preparation work that they did. We look forward to meeting the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform at a future meeting of this committee to discuss the progress made at the Council meeting.
The joint committee went into private session at 5.05 p.m. and adjourned at 5.10 p.m. until3.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 5 November 2003.