The next item is the consideration of two motions concerning initiatives by the Italian Republic with a view to adopting a Council decision on the organisation of joint flights for removal from the territory of two or more member states of third country nationals who are subjects of individual removal orders and a Council directive on assistance in cases of transit through the territory of one or more member states in the context of removal orders by member states against third country nationals. I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and his officials.
Joint Flights and Land Transit: Motions.
I thank the committee for the invitation to give a briefing on two initiatives proposed by the Italian Republic - one with a view to adopting a Council decision on the shared organisation of joint flights for removals of third country nationals illegally present on the territory of two or more member states, and the other with a view to adopting a Council directive on assistance in cases of transit through the national territory of one or more member states.
Members may wonder why these initiatives are coming from the Italian Republic. Under a pillar of the European treaties, member states, as opposed to the Commission, may come forward with initiatives which do not get far unless they have unanimous support. It is still an area in which member states have a power of initiative and that is why these proposals have been made by the Italians.
I will begin with an overview of both proposals and I hope to explain the current state of negotiations, what will be involved if agreement is reached on the proposals and where they fit into overall EU policy development in this area. I will then gladly respond to questions members may have on the proposals.
I understand that members of the committee have been given a copy of the Council Documents COM 12025/03, on the proposed joint flights decision, and COM 12026/03, on the assistance during land transit directive, both dated 9 September 2003. Both of these initiatives were proposed by one member state, Italy, and not by the European Commission. Such proposals are processed in the same manner and have the same validity as if they had been initiated by the Commission. However, the right of individual member states to initiate such proposals in the asylum and immigration area will end in May 2004. This is likely to be one of the final national proposals to come before us.
Both draft instruments presented to the Council include recitals to the effect that Ireland is not taking part in the adoption of the directive and decision and, therefore, without prejudice to Article 4 of the protocol, is not bound by them or subject to their application. These recitals will be amended to reflect Ireland's decision to opt in under Article 3 of the protocol, assuming the approval of the Oireachtas has been given. This is one of the cases provided for in the Constitution. The Oireachtas must give its say so if the Government chooses to exercise an option or discretion under that aspect of the European treaties.
I propose to first examine the proposal for a Council decision on the shared organisation of joint flights. The purpose of this decision is to improve co-operation between member states in implementing measures for the removal and return of third country nationals illegally residing in the state. If adopted, the decision will oblige participating states to advise each other whenever joint flights for the removal of illegally resident third country nationals are organised, indicating the number of seats available on board and inviting the participation of other member states.
The organising member state will appoint a leader for the operation, select a suitable air carrier, arrange the necessary contract and then ensure the carrier obtains a flight plan, necessary fly-over permits and landing authorisation at the destinations and intermediate places. It will be up to the participating member states to ensure enough escort personnel are provided for each third country national removed. This decision has been under discussion at EU level for several months and was discussed last week at the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Brussels, which I attended. The Council intends to adopt this decision once the European Parliament has delivered its opinion and when the scrutiny parliamentary reservations entered by France and the Netherlands have been lifted. The implementation date is May 2004.
From Ireland's point of view, joint charters are a more efficient and effective means of removing increased numbers of third country nationals who are the subject of deportation orders. Charters are used extensively by the UK and other member states acting on their own initiative or in conjunction with other neighbouring states. Until now, Ireland has used commercial flights to effect the majority of its removal orders. There have only been three occasions where deportees could not be removed using commercial flights and, at the request of the Garda national immigration bureau, charter flights have been used. The first chartered flight took place in January 2002 to Algiers, the second in March 2002 to Lagos and the third, also to Lagos, in November 2002. Ireland intends to make effective use of the proposed joint charter decision as it offers a more effective and cost saving way of removing persons with deportation decisions.
The second proposal, if adopted, will oblige participating states to provide each other with the necessary support and assistance when travelling through the territory of one or more member states for the purposes of carrying out removal orders of third country nationals. It also includes sea crossings between two points within the same country. This directive complements an earlier proposal put forward by Germany which offers assistance to member states carrying out removal orders by air. The land transit directive provides for a range of assistance measures, including accommodation and subsistence needs. The assistance on offer would involve, for example, meeting expellees and their escorts on arrival at border crossings and making sure the transit operation is carried out effectively. Importantly, the proposed directive provides that escorting personnel shall not carry weapons during a transit operation, shall wear civilian clothes and shall only use reasonable and proportionate action to deal with any serious and immediate risks which may arise in accordance with national legislation.
This proposal is still under discussion at the EU migration and expulsion working group. The implementation date for this initiative is also May 2004. These initiatives come under title IV of the treaty establishing the European Community. This means they do not automatically apply to Ireland or the UK. However, under Article 3 of the fourth protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam, to which the UK is also a party, Ireland has three months from the date a proposal or initiative is presented to the Council to notify the president of the Council in writing of its wish to take part in the adoption and application of any such proposed measure.
The approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas is required before such a notification can be made. Members will be familiar with this process in the exercise of previous opt ins. Ireland has exercised the option in respect of a number of other proposals for EU instruments, mainly in regard to asylum and judicial co-operation matters. With the proposed joint flights decision and the land transit directive, the three month notification deadline is 26 November 2003.
Ireland should respond positively to both these instruments. Ireland has issued a declaration that it intends to take part in the adoption of measures pursuant to title IV of the treaty establishing the European Community to the maximum extent compatible with the maintenance of the common travel arrangements with the UK. As there are no freedom of movement provisions in the proposed directive or decision, it is unlikely to have an impact on the common travel arrangements. I expect the UK will also opt in.
Both initiatives were presented by Italy to the Council on 27 August 2003 and have their legal basis in Article 63(3)(b) of the treaty establishing the European Communities. This article deals with the obligation of the Council to adopt measures in the area of illegal immigration and illegal residents, including the repatriation of illegal residents. The current proposals should be considered in the context of other important Community measures in the area of expulsion that have been adopted or are under discussion under the same article. First is Council Directive 2001/40/EC on the mutual recognition of the expulsion decision. This was adopted by the Council on 28 May 2001 and makes it possible for member states to recognise the expulsion decisions made in another member state. Ireland has opted into this directive following earlier Oireachtas approval.
Related to this is the proposed Council directive to compensate member states for financial imbalances arising from the application of the mutual recognition directive. This decision was agreed at last week's Justice and Home Affairs Council and, on behalf of Ireland, I indicated our intention to participate under Article 4 of the fourth Protocol of the Amsterdam treaty, which allows Ireland and the UK to opt in any time after the adoption of a measure. In Ireland's case, this is subject to Government and Oireachtas approval beforehand.
Another measure relevant in this area is the proposed German Council directive on providing mutual assistance during transit for removal by air. This is similar to the land transit under discussion today and effectively means that the member states will provide each other with a range of assistance measures in cases of transit for the purpose of expelling by air illegally resident third country nationals who are the subject of expulsion orders in member states. This is valuable to us since, if we are moving someone via London to Lagos, the British have power under European law to help us keep that person in custody while he or she is moved from one aircraft to another.
The Council has given the European Commission a mandate to negotiate readmission agreements with 11 countries or entities on behalf of the member states. These are at various stages of negotiation and when finally concluded will greatly facilitate the removal and return of illegally resident third country nationals from the territory of member states. In that regard, if the European Commission has greater clout and leverage with third countries of origin, it gives us a huge advantage if it negotiates an agreement on our behalf.
Does the Minister have a list of those countries?
I do not have a list of the countries but I can arrange for them to be provided. I do not want to be inaccurate because I know the list only from a verbal briefing by Commissioner Antonio Vitorino. I will come up with as many as I can and will notify the committee in writing of the full list.
All those Community measures are in accordance with a comprehensive plan to combat illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings in the EU, which was approved by the Council on 28 February 2002 as well as the plan for the management of the external borders of the EU, approved by the Council on 13 June 2002, which was confirmed by the return action programme, approved by the Council on 28 November 2002.
As I have already mentioned, the proposals have their legal basis in Article 63 of the treaty establishing the European Communities. The proposed decision and directive are also considered to the building on the Schengen Convention. In essence, the Schengen system involves the abolition of border controls between participating states, together with a series of measures designed to strengthen external EU borders and address participants' security concerns. All EU member states, with the exception of the UK and Ireland, are full participants in the Schengen system, as are Iceland and Norway. The system forms and acquis communautaire - an annex to the Maastricht treaty and the treaty establishing the European Community.
A Council decision of 28 February 2002 approved Ireland's application to participate in certain aspects of the Schengen aquis in regard to police and judicial co-operation, certain immigration measures and the Schengen information system and data protection.
I hope my contribution gives a broad contextual understanding of the two measures and the context in which they are being discussed and I am pleased to take members questions. Having noticed the discussion on the Order of Business, many people said this was a vitally important matter and seemed to have views to express but they have not turned up here.
I will not take too long since I support these proposals as recognisable and common sense measures. We constantly refer to the cost of the immigration system to the country, which is close to €350 million. In that context, how much has the Minister calculated we will save through these measures? I have asked such questions and raised concerns about the amount of money we are spending on the chartering of aircraft and commercial flights, as well as the cost which adds up in regard to the Garda escorts.
I presume that, in some cases, these third countries have more aircraft than us. As I understand it, these measures could bring a benefit to Ireland in regard to the financial cost. However, I do not want this to be a good reason or attraction for deporting more people. If it is executed properly, this is a common sense measure which could save us a lot of money. How much does the Minister expect to save on air travel?
I cannot answer that because it depends on how effective the measure is. The Deputy might ask if anything similar to this in operation. I am constantly mystified why European directives have to issue in respect of issues which are common sense. However, the advantage of such directives is that they give a legal basis for custody and so on which would otherwise require primary legislation and perhaps an international convention to back it up.
The UK immigration service currently offers a facility to the Garda national immigration bureau. It has a weekly charter flight from Stansted Airport to Kosovo and Albania for the purpose of deporting persons to those countries. That co-operation began in 2002 and according to the Garda works well. In total, 13 Kosovars and four Albanians have been removed from Ireland using that charter facility and there has been only one report of a disruptive passenger.
Deputy Deasy asked how much is saved by such and arrangement. We would have to decide whether it is reasonable to detain groups of non-nationals long enough to accumulate a sufficient group and, if one was to do that, what kind of aircraft one would charter. I do not know the exact costs of what are effectively air taxis because we are dealing with such small numbers.
Where would we keep them?
They would have to be lodged in Mountjoy or Wheatfield prisons pending their deportation, which is not a happy situation.
Have we co-operated with countries in this regard before?
We have co-operated with the UK in regard to the Kosovars and are in negotiations with Dutch authorities to set up a similar scheme. We hope to have a joint flight with the Netherlands authorities to Romania at the end of the month. That is the kind of practical co-operation we are talking about. The amount of money this saves depends on how many people one sends on any particular flight. It is difficult to put a figure on it.
How much are we spending on this currently?
For the year 2003, the figure is €1 million. Last year, the figure was €1.8 million and the year before that, €900,000. In 2000, it was €300,00 and in 1999, €21,000. The average per capita cost has declined from €3,589 to €2,698 over that period because we are doing more of it.
I will tell anyone who will listen that, when one thinks of the decisions one must take for which €1 million would come in handy, these are significant sums of money. In 2003, we deported 398 people so far for just more than €1 million, which is a small fraction of the number of deportation orders which I have signed during the year.
Do those figures relate to the cost of the flights only or do they include Garda resources and time?
I imagine they relate to the cost of the flights and do not include the escort costs.
Does Deputy Costello wish to commence a line of questioning?
I wish to raise a few points. Does the Minister agree that this is a fairly substantial and serious matter and that we will have to amend the original draft instrument from which we dissented? We indicated that we were not going to be part and parcel of this procedure. We were entitled to opt out under the Schengen acquis but now we are indicating that we wish to opt in. We have a substantial new decision on the matter which not only requires an amendment for Ireland in respect of the protocol but also, as the Minister indicates, may well require secondary legislation.
Although the draft document before the committee recites the fact that we had opted out or, to put it more accurately, were not opting in, that is not the case. That is just standard drafting. Unless they had a clear signal from us that we were in, we were recited as not being in. We never actually came to a conclusion one way or another on this issue——
Is it the case that we had not opted in but are now doing so?
Yes.
Can I take it that the draft document is inaccurate? It says that the initial instrument includes the recital at paragraph 9 to the effect that Ireland is not taking part.
The point is that the Italian State composes its own draft. It does not consult us to the point where we can ask it to change this or that. It is an automatic default situation. If Britain and Ireland are not in, the recitation is stuck in the draft. If France, Germany or anyone else tenders one of these documents, they stick a sentence in the recitals to the effect that the United Kingdom and Ireland are not opting in, unless they get a clear signal that we are.
Does it mean we are opting out if we are not opting in?
We have to opt in.
We have to opt in otherwise they will say we have opted out.
They will say that we are not exercising our options and recite that in their recitals. It is almost like something that is on the word processor. It comes out unless we——
Then we did not really say no.
No, and we are not changing our minds either.
We just did not say yes. Now we are saying yes and are opting in.
That is correct.
Will secondary legislation be required to give effect to our opt in? The draft document says secondary legislation by way of a statutory instrument may be required.
It depends.
Yes or no?
We are not at a tribunal now.
Our arrangement with Britain does not require any secondary legislation at the moment. We simply bring people to Britain in custody - handcuffs may or may not be used - and they are put on the flights to Nigeria or wherever. That is how it happens now. It is debatable whether it would be desirable to have a statutory instrument under the European Communities Act providing for this or if we should just proceed with the directive providing a legal base.
These matters should be sorted out before it is presented to us here. I do not see any reason——
The answer is I do not——
It does, at least, require approval by the Oireachtas and this is what the Minister is looking for now.
All I am looking for now is approval by both Houses of the Oireachtas for us to opt in. The directive, if it becomes binding and is adopted by other member states, will bind us when we opt in. When it binds us, it becomes a matter of the Attorney General's legal opinion whether it is sufficient that it exists as a directive or whether we need further primary or secondary elaborating legislation. These issues will follow from our decision to opt in.
The clock is ticking against us at this stage. We have until 26 November to opt in. We can sort out the ramifications of how we will live up to our obligations at a later stage. The question is whether we agree to opt in or not. Ireland is one of the few countries in Europe where a Minister is not merely bound by statute but by the Constitution to come and ask for permission to do something like this.
Can we have clarity on this? Is there a 26 November deadline? Can we not make our decision at a future date when we have got this properly organised and know whether we need secondary legislation or if the United Kingdom is opting in? The Minister is not able to tell us whether the United Kingdom will join. What are the implications for us if it does not? Most of the other countries are not bound by the Schengen agreement anyway. It seems to me that we are coming at this half cocked. The whole purpose of the Schengen acquis was to allow us the freedom to opt in or out of the various protocols without facing a deadline demanding our decision.
I would just like to mention a few other points.
We can just go with one point.
May I just deal with that point? I cannot oblige Britain or pre-empt its decision. I have indicated that it is my understanding that the British will opt in on the first of these measures. They may not opt in on the second on the basis that they have so many direct flights to London that the idea of sending people across land for deportation is unattractive.
Will the Irish not be able to cross over the United Kingdom by land?
We will have to see whether that is one of the things affected. It might help us if the British joined on this but I cannot force their hand on it. They have a free choice to opt in or out.
I would put a second point to Deputy Costello. Once a directive is made, it is a done deal. One of the advantages of opting in is that we can participate in the wording of the directive. When attending the Justice and Home Affairs Council Ireland and the United Kingdom are in a kind of neutral or semi-detached position. Unless they exercise an option, they cannot just chip in and say they do not like clause 3 of a directive and want it amended. If they did they would be quickly reminded by the Chair that they had not opted in on this and it was none of their business. They would be told that the other member states were in on it and that if they wanted to come in to negotiate the text of the directive and how it should apply, they would have to come on board and say that they were getting involved in the process. Essentially we have to put up or shut up.
Could we explore that? If we are going to get involved in the process we have to opt in by 26 November or whatever. The process was initiated by the Italian Government which has in a sense run it and is now presenting it to the other members with this deadline. To what extent will negotiations continue from that point or do the beginning of negotiations on the text of the document begin once we reach the deadline of the opt in or opt out clause?
No, once the opt-ins take place, negotiation and amendment can take place in the process which brings it forward. This raises an interesting and tricky constitutional question for us. If I go there with the committee's say-so and opt in and then the directive turns into a wholly different one and the sense of it is totally changed, do I have, effectively, a blank cheque to sign up? When I was Attorney General the answer to that was if something was substantially different at the end of the process than when the right to negotiate was given, we would have to come back and get another licence to agree. I do not believe there will be much more apart from drafting changes on this.
One of the difficulties is that it is perfectly reasonable for our European partners to say we cannot get involved in negotiations if we are completely neutral as to whether this will affect us. In a body where it is difficult enough to get a consensus there are people who are both negotiating and keeping their exit clause open. The short answer to the question Deputy Costello is posing is that I cannot assist him in a clinical way. There is a point at which, if we opted into negotiations and the thing became a cow rather than a horse, I would feel obliged to come back and get a second authorisation for a final vote.
I will let Deputy Costello ask this question and then we will return to Deputy Deasy.
Does that mean we are buying a pig in a poke?
A cow and a horse.
It depends to what degree it will be changed. If there is, what the Minister would consider a minor amendment, or a more substantial amendment, he will have the discretion, if we give him the go-ahead, to opt into the negotiations as distinct from opting into the finished product or opting out. With our go-ahead, the Minister will have full discretion to determine whether to come back to us.
I feel like a dentist approaching Deputy Costello with a syringe, saying trust me, trust me.
The Schengen agreement, as I understand it, would mostly mean not opting in to negotiations; it would be opting in to a finished product. When we see the finished product we decide whether we want to go in.
Is the Minister going to report back to this committee?
I always do; I keep reporting back to the committee.
Could you refer this back to the committee after the meeting?
I am asking for the committee's authority to become involved in the discussions and negotiations. I will take it as a licence to proceed to full adoption unless what I hear is radically different.
Perhaps the Minister can explain the practical side of the sharing of costs. We are talking about another country with individuals from a particular country. Who shares the cost in this case? How does that structure work? How is it set up?
If Ireland was preparing a flight to Romania we would be obliged, under the first of these two measures, to notify other member states that we were preparing a flight to Romania, leaving Dublin on a certain date. It would then be open to the Dutch to say that they have four Romanian people they want to bring and that they will fly them to Dublin. It is a matter of agreement. We are not obliged to allow the Dutch to wade on board the plane at a fixed price. It is a matter for agreement between the two governments, but I cannot imagine the circumstances in which either the Dutch or Ireland would agree to anything other than an average percentage of the cost. If it is costing Ireland, €500,000 or €100,000 to fly 12 people home, the normal course would be that if the Dutch turn up with 10% of the potential passenger load they would be billed for 10% of the cost. There could be exceptional circumstances in which it would vary, but I presume that the Dutch would be intelligent people and would not pay more than their fair share of the operation.
Presumably the Minister can negotiate with any member state?
Yes.
I have a question about escorts. Article 9 says that in the absence of law enforcement officers from the requested member state, escort personnel may take reasonable and proportionate action to deal with a serious and immediate risk, etc. Whereas I can see that the escorts the Minister would employ as Minister for Justice and Law Reform would use reasonable methods, is there a possibility that other countries could use methods like sedation by intravenous methods, such as injection?
As far as I know sedation is never used. The Taoiseach said today that nation states retain their sovereignty in respect of these matters. If I or the gardaí saw some third country national being abused or improperly treated, the Irish Constitution and Irish criminal law apply to such a person. The term "reasonable and proportionate action" would be subject to Irish criminal law. One could not have somebody doing something which an Irish policeman in similar circumstances could not do. It is very hard to put in a formula what that may amount to. For instance, is it absolutely essential to handcuff people? That is one question. If one is dealing with a family of husband, wife and children, it is probably unnecessary to handcuff anybody. One could have difficult people, which we have had, when they went berserk and bit and kicked people. In the courts recently a person was released on a technicality and rearrested. The immigration officer's arm was broken in the Four Courts when the arrest took place. People behave very violently on occasion. Proportionate and reasonable force is effectively what is necessary to ensure that people cannot frustrate the deportation. It does not go to terrible extremes. It does not go to sedation or gagging, to my knowledge.
I suppose it would be a reasonable presumption that Ireland would not be party to assisting other countries in the transit of people, either by land or sea, unless they were going to the United States, as everything would be heading in an easterly or south-westerly direction.
It could happen theoretically. If one examines the situation where a person from Northern Ireland was to be deported from Shannon to somewhere else, one can imagine that it would be by land transit. It could happen.
Yes. Given that this is operating in the context of 25 countries, to what extent does it make Ireland party to the decisions and rules of those countries in respect of asylum seekers and the people expelled? We are going to be facing a situation caused by the Supreme Court decision, which was made last Christmas, on the expulsion of thousands of Irish-born children. This is in the context of 11,000 people who will effectively face mass deportation. That would be peculiar to Ireland in terms of asylum applications, etc. There was a mention today in the Dáil of the policies of Silvio Berlusconi towards refugees around the coasts of Italy and the fact that this is an Italian initiative not coming from the Council of Ministers or the Commission. This is an initiative of an individual state. Do we know what sort of briefing document was produced by the Italians to indicate that they wanted this particular approach on this issue?
Major issues are raised by this. The Minister stated that people would be held in prisons, or could be if awaiting deportation, or in transit. It was stated that the various other jurisdictions would come into play and the sovereignty of each jurisdiction would apply. No doubt the general rules on detention and armed police and the distinctive operations of each country would be issues that would arise if this particular procedure goes ahead. Perhaps the Minister might indicate his position?
I think I have the drift of the Deputy's questions.
Are there any other questions? I want Deputy Costello to put together——
We could easily have armed escorts coming into this country.
Under this arrangement, an explicit exclusion is made in terms of anybody being armed.
That is specific.
Is the Minister referring to batons, firearms and all weapons?
Firearms.
So, irrespective of how they are armed, members of a police force in a particular jurisdiction cannot enter another jurisdiction while——
They cannot carry firearms into another jurisdiction.
They can just carry handcuffs and batons.
They have to be allowed to use handcuffs otherwise the entire system would be unworkable.
Will the Deputy conclude his questions on this matter?
That is all I have to offer in terms of what happens——
May I deal with the question at which I believe the Deputy was driving?
The Minister may do so.
Across the European Union, measures are about to be agreed - we hope during the Italian Presidency but definitely during our Presidency - under which there will be common criteria for recognising and dealing with asylum seekers. These measures will not be entirely uniform because different member states will have their own ways of dealing with matters of this nature. However, the fundamental structure will be one under which everyone will be obliged to observe the same minimum rules.
Sweden is regarded as being far more liberal than many other member states. Ireland, because of its high per capita rate of asylum seekers, must be liberal. The latter is the only explanation why people travel so far to get here.
People have been asking about particular matters and it is important to place the following information on record, In 1999, 126 deportation orders were made and six people were actually deported; in 2000, 930 orders were made and 187 were actually carried out; in 2001, 1,985 orders were made and 365 were carried out; in 2002, 2,464 orders were made and 521 were carried out and, to date in 2003, 1,955 orders have been made and 472 have been carried out. I must also point out that in 1999, 37 people left the country through assisted voluntary passages; in 2000, 248 left in this way; in 2001, there were 356 such departures; in 2002, there were 506; and, to date in 2003, 648 have left the country voluntarily. If one added together the deportation orders effected this year and the number of voluntary returns, one would arrive at a figure of over 1,000 out of 1,955. These orders and returns do not necessarily involve the same people, because they are people in arrears. However, if one considers the trend, the picture is not as appalling as a man on a bar stool might claim - none of them is ever sent home. It is now approaching 50% to 60%.
There are other bars where people would say the picture is even more appalling.
I apologise, I gave the figure. It is not that high. The 648 would not be part of the 1,955. I was wrong, I retract what I said.
There is no direct correlation between the two figures.
If someone says that they intend to return home in any event, we will assist them in doing so and the deportation order is not then made. The figure is not as good as I indicated. It is running at approximately 20%, not 60%.
Twenty per cent——
That percentage of deportations are effected. However, there are a number of people who leave before the deportation orders are made. It would be wrong for me to express these as a percentage of the total because they are, in effect, in addition to that.
Are there some people among the 1,955 who are appealing against their deportation?
I suppose there are some who would. For example, some decisions are made in cases where there is a humanitarian need to remain after the deportation order has been made. Some people are challenging the orders in the courts.
We are talking about 700 or 800 people. Is there another category?
As already mentioned, 648 people already returned home voluntarily this year when it was pointed out to them that they did not have a leg to stand on. Deportation orders did not have to be made in respect of these people.
Out of the 1,955?
No. The 648 are in addition to that figure.
How many of the 1,955 have ignored their deportation orders?
It appears that approximately 80% of them have not been caught. In that regard, however, approximately 50% of those who apply for asylum disappear on the day after they make their application. We never hear from these individuals again. Deportation orders are eventually made against them because they would have entered the country, applied for asylum and their application would be deemed to be refused. The files eventually come to my office and I sign the deportation orders.
That is fine.
There would then be a vast discrepancy between each of those figures and the number of applicants.
It would be extremely difficult for us to sort through those figures. There is a great deal of obfuscation.
The number of asylum seekers is decreasing at present.
I wish to follow up on one of Deputy Costello's comments. I presume that, in some cases, people who are going to be deported are languishing in Mountjoy.
Is the Deputy moving on to prisons now?
No, I am just wondering about the period.
The maximum period is eight weeks. It would not frequently be the case that someone would be there for eight weeks.
However, some people would be there for a few weeks before transportation could be arranged. I presume this measure would expedite matters.
It must be remembered that virtually all of the people in those cases would effectively be given the option of returning home. Someone whose situation is pointed out to them as being groundless is given the option of going home. We do not put people in prison out of some sense of retribution. Our aim is that everyone would go home as soon as their situation——
Are any arrangements made for the children of people who may be in Mountjoy? We visited Mountjoy recently and there was——
It does not have to be Mountjoy; it could be Wheatfield.
——a child, who was not in the prison, involved in one particular case.
If somebody is the subject of a deportation order they are, in the first instance, invited to attend at a Garda station and they will only be arrested if they evade the deportation order. Members will recognise - from the point of view of the Garda this is common sense - that we want people to co-operate with the procedure and we do not want to have to execute orders or make them the subject of unnecessary legal procedures.
With regard to deportations that have been effected, the top five countries since 1999 are: Romania, with 425 - this is probably explained by the fact that it is a European country with which we have a return agreement; the Czech Republic with 223; Poland with 203; China with 80 and Nigeria, from which 30% to 40% immigrants to this country come, with 78. There is obviously much greater difficulty involved in effecting deportations to Nigeria because we do not have direct flights. We have a return agreement with Nigeria but its operation is causing much more difficulty with other states.
I presume that this particular measure would facilitate deportations to Nigeria.
I thank the Minister and his officials for their attendance and for the work they have done on the various motions. Can I take it the committee recommends there should not be further debate on the motion in the Dáil or the Seanad?
I am not sure.
Unfortunately, the wording of such motions has been amended following agreement between various Whips and every committee chairman will be obliged to put this question.
The Chair is asking to us make a recommendation contrary to the division in the Dáil an hour ago. The Dáil divided on this issue. Those presenting for the division felt the motion should be debated by both Houses because it is a major issue. If the committee recommends that both Houses should not debate it further, it means the minority is recommending the majority should behave in a certain way. Generally, it is the other way around.
The question must be put to a vote similar to an amendment to a Bill.
All Deputies and Senators are entitled to attend the committee, not merely to make a speech but also to interrogate the Minister.
I thank the Minister and his officials for their attendance and look forward to meeting them again in the near future.