JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, EQUALITY, DEFENCE AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 4 May 2004

European Refugee Fund 2005-10: Motion.

Acting Chairman (Deputy P. McGrath)

The meeting will consider the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann approve the exercise by the State of the option, provided by Article 3 of the fourth Protocol set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam, to notify the President of the Council that it wishes to take part in the adoption and application of the following measure:

A proposal for a Council decision establishing the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005-10,

a copy of which proposed measure was laid before Dáil Éireann on 2 April 2004.

I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, and his officials to the meeting. Members have been circulated with a copy of the text of the proposed decision in addition to an addendum to the proposal, a European Commission staff working paper, the extended impact assessment, the report for this meeting and also a background note. The Minister's speaking note and other documentation has also been circulated to members. I invite the Minister to make his opening presentation.

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy McDowell)

This motion concerns a proposal by the European Commission for a Council decision to establish a second phase of the European Refugee Fund for the period 2005 to 2010. The likely allocation to Ireland over this period will be in the region of €12 million, almost a trebling of the current allocation. Under Article 3 of the Fourth Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam, Ireland has three months from the date of the proposal to notify the President of the Council of the European Union that it wishes to take part in the adoption and application of this proposal. The proposal was submitted by the EU Commission to Council on 16 February 2004, which is why the matter is before this committee today.

The European Refugee Fund was first established through a Council decision in September 2000, its purpose being to encourage and support member states' efforts in receiving and bearing the consequences of receiving refugees and displaced persons. The decision establishing the first phase of the fund, which runs from 2000 until the end of 2004, identified three distinct measures under which applications for funding could be sought: reception, such as addressing special needs of traumatised persons and victims of violence; integration, such as assistance in the areas of housing or health care and voluntary repatriation, such as training and assistance towards resettlement in country of origin.

Member states' allocations were made on an annual basis and are based primarily on the numbers of asylum seekers and refugees arriving in the those states. Ireland has been allocated a total of €4.2 million from the first phase of the fund. I understand members of the committee have been provided with details of the recipients of funding from the fund. Member states must also appoint a responsible authority to administer the fund. In Ireland's case, this is the reception and integration agency of my Department.

Under the first phase of the fund, organisations are invited on an annual basis to apply for funding for projects under the three aforementioned measures. This invitation is issued by the reception and integration agency by way of a call for proposals advertised in the national press. Applications received after the deadline or which do not meet eligibility criteria set out in the guidelines accompanying the call for proposals are not put forward for selection. The eligibility criteria used at that stage of the process are based on the criteria set out in the Council decision that established the fund.

Those projects which enter the selection process proper are then subject to a pre-vetting exercise whereby a number of officials from my Department attached to the reception and integration agency assess the proposals with a view to preparing a shortlist for final selection. The final stage of the selection process is conducted by a selection committee made up of Government and non-governmental representatives. Among the selection criteria used to assess applications are: the extent to which the proposal meets the needs and requirements in Ireland under the three measures; cost-effectiveness and value for money; the experience and track record of the organisation; the capacity of the organisation to deliver the goals set out in the proposal; the sustainability of the proposed actions; the need to avoid duplication in terms of geography and the nature of the service proposed; and the extent to which the proposed action complements EU and national policy on asylum seekers and refugees.

Under the provisions of the Council decision establishing the first phase of the fund, up to 75% of project expenditure can be met through the fund. Traditionally, most of the remaining 25% of co-financing has come from within the NGO community. From 2000 to 2003, more than €3 million of Ireland's total allocation under the first phase was awarded to 49 different projects. A sum of €1.3 million was awarded to 17 projects under the reception measure, €1.6 million to 30 projects under the integration measure and €200,000 to two projects under the voluntary return measure. Individual awards ranged from €3,000 to €150,000, the latter being in respect of the setting up of a care and rehabilitation centre for survivors of torture in Phibsborough, Dublin, by the Spiritan Asylum Seeker Initiative, SPIRASI.

That the majority of projects funded during the first phase of the fund were integration projects rather than projects in the field of reception reflects the fact that the reception needs of asylum seekers, such as accommodation, food and health care, are already provided for by the Government's policy of direct provision which has been implemented by the reception and integration agency since 2000.

The selection process for 2004 is under way, with 39 projects seeking an allocation of just over €900,000. Early indications are that the majority of proposals will, once again, be in the field of integration.

During the first three years, funding has been allocated to a wide range of organisations, including well-established groups like the Irish Refugee Council and the Immigrant Council of Ireland, as well as smaller ethnic minority-led organisations such as the African Refugee Network and the African Solidarity Centre.

Let us consider typical actions that have been funded under the three measures. Under the reception measure, funding has gone to projects aimed at: providing care and rehabilitation for asylum seekers who have been victims of violence, rape and torture or who may be traumatised from having come from a region of conflict; the setting up of drop-in centres to provide information and support to asylum seekers at a local community level; and projects aimed at addressing the particular needs of women and young mothers.

Under the integration measure a wide range of activities has been funded through the European Refugee Fund, including: provision of language supports; targeting the housing needs of refugees; provision of information and support to those refugees seeking further education, vocational training or recognition of their qualifications; provision of legal advice; provision of health services including information and practical assistance to sufferers of AIDS and TB and young single mothers; and co-ordination of integration services through links with smaller organisations.

Under the voluntary repatriation measure, limited expertise is available at a national level although two projects undertaken by the International Organisation for Migration have received funding through the fund. These projects were aimed specifically at providing information and assistance in the voluntary return of unaccompanied minors and persons from the former CIS countries.

The Commission's proposal for a second phase of the fund aims to build on the experiences and successes of the first phase. Following exhaustive consultation by the Commission with all relevant parties, the new proposal seeks to be more strategic in its approach. From an EU perspective, the fund is one of a number of strategic measures geared to the development of an overall common asylum policy and is biased towards obtaining as much added value as possible at both national and international levels.

The main changes being implemented in the new proposal are as follows: a move from annual programming to multi-annual programming, allowing funding to be granted to a project for up to three years running, facilitating a more strategic approach to the utilisation of the fund; development of common guidelines for use by all member states in developing their national multi-annual programme for distribution of the fund; simplification of management procedures carried out on an annual basis; a fixed amount of €500,000 for the ten new member states, on top of the allocation based on numbers of asylum seekers and refugees, so they may meet the challenge of becoming the new borders of Europe - many of the new member states have little or no infrastructure in place to handle the consequences of receiving asylum seekers and refugees; and a threefold increase in the overall level of funding over the period 2005 to 2010. Subject to approval of the EU budgetary committee, the indicative financial allocations suggest up to €670 million will be made available for the second phase compared to €216 million in the first.

Opting into this proposal will continue to provide a welcome source of financial resources which will be distributed at a local community level to complement the State's efforts in receiving and accommodating asylum seekers, assisting in the integration of those persons with refugee status or leave to remain and assisting those persons who wish to return voluntarily to their countries of origin. As Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I am strongly of the view that it is important that Ireland respond positively to the tabling of this proposal for a second phase by exercising its right under the fourth protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam, to take part in its adoption and application.

Acting Chairman

I thank the Minister for his contribution.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I support the motion. I would like the Minister to address two points, the first of which relates to the fixed amount of €500,000 for the ten new member states to meet the challenge of becoming the new borders of Europe. In light of all the celebrations at the weekend, this seems a rather miserable allocation given that the total sum is €670 million. I know it is on top of the allocation, based on number, but it still sounds very miserable.

Second, the Minister refers to the fact that the fund is one of a number of strategic measures geared to the development of an overall common asylum policy and is biased towards obtaining as much added value as possible at both national and international levels. Does the reference to the development of an overall asylum policy mean there is none at present? If not, why not and when will we have one? Does the reference to the bias towards obtaining as much added value as possible imply co-financing by NGOs?

Deputy McDowell

The €5 million divided among ten countries amounts to €500,000 for each. This is from the €670 million.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Is €500,000 being allocated to each country?.

Deputy McDowell

Yes. It is not a considerable sum, even viewed in that light, but it is quite significant because it gives the countries in question an extra leg up that would not otherwise come their way on a pro rata distribution of the funds by reference to where refugees are going. It must be remembered that the refugees, for obvious reasons which I will not go into, are tending to go to the countries which are most prosperous rather than the less developed countries in the EU. It is an effort to re-balance the fund away from destinations of choice to countries which have an inadequate infrastructure.

On the overall asylum policy there is, as part of the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Tampere Council conclusions, an obligation on the European Union to establish an overall asylum policy for the Union. We have made very significant progress on these matters during the Irish Presidency. We do not always get the opportunity to pat ourselves on the back but officials from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, as part of the Presidency, have effectively negotiated through the procedures and qualifications directives at EU level - something which had defied agreement for seven Presidencies prior to our arrival on the scene. We now have these two major building blocks in place, which are the fundamental cornerstones of this stage of the Union's asylum policy.

They establish a common system of minimum standards across the EU, in both existing member states and the ten new member states, by reference to which the qualifications of someone for asylum seeking and protection will be decided in every member state. They do not represent a ceiling but they do represent a floor. It took a great deal of negotiation to get agreement to the common qualifications. In respect of procedures, a second directive which had also caused major difficulties was dealt with in the negotiation process. It deals with the common minimum guarantees in respect of procedures for asylum seekers and other persons in need of help.

We have political agreement and we have effectively closed both issues. They will be implemented as soon as the re-elected European Parliament is in a position to deal with them. These were two of the issues which had to be addressed by 1 May, the first of which was accomplished at the March Council meeting, while the other was dealt with on 29 April, with just two days to go, with a considerable amount of diplomatic effort.

When we refer to added value, we mean that we are not simply giving the funds to someone who intends to do the job anyway. They are not intended as a subsidy for existing activity. The purpose is to ensure that these new funds enhance the services available to people for whom they are intended rather than simply substitute and allow people to take their feet off the accelerator themselves. In terms of added value, we are looking for a clear indication that if the funding is given to the organisation in question, something will happen which would not have done. Otherwise, one is simply displacing finding from one project to another within an NGO and that is not what it is about.

Deputy Costello

I welcome the Minister and his officials. This is an important issue. The Minister has outlines something I was unaware of, namely, that there have been agreed on some basis, certain minimum criteria in respect of asylum policy throughout the European Union. I presume those documents in respect of qualifications and procedures will come before the committee. The Minister kept that quiet.

Deputy McDowell

I was trying to get as much praise and publicity but no one was interested in taking it up.

Acting Chairman

The spin doctors failed the Minister.

Deputy McDowell

The spin doctors failed miserably to get the message out.

Acting Chairman

That is a change. The Minister must not have had dinner with a certain man recently.

Deputy Costello

My remarks are directed in a different context, namely, that members of the committee would have liked to have some input if we knew the Minister was proposing this. We have concerns about immigration policy, migrant workers and asylum seekers and we have just passed the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2004, the main reason for which was supposed to be that we did not have adequate health provision to deal with women coming into the country. Apparently, they were being dealt with inadequately and we needed to deal with the problem on a legal basis. I would have like to see greater substance in respect if EU asylum policy coming before this committee so we could have had an opportunity to discuss it.

We do not have an immigration policy and it seems strange that we could develop an EU common policy without having the nuts and bolts of an infrastructure ourselves or any discussion of any merit on the issue. The Minister himself has admitted there are loopholes in the system. In a newspaper report today he referred to a green card on the one hand and a bonded arrangement for migrant workers on the other. There is now a different system for nationals of accession countries and others coming here for part time work on a migrant basis.

The asylum issue also needs to be addressed. There is a live question as to whether asylum seekers should be granted work rights if they are resident here in excess of a certain period of time, as is the case in some other EU countries. I am not sure how all that will work out given that we do not have a common infrastructure.

I have some problems with the use of the money in this fund which is classified for reception, integration and voluntary returns. Reception and integration are very desirable projects for use of the money but we all know there is no such thing as a voluntary return. Rather, a person will return under duress having been told what the consequences are if they do not return. That is not exactly a voluntary return. I have some concerns in this regard and I would like the Minister to elaborate further as to how money is spent in this area in regard to the options given in his Department. Is the money spent by his Department? I am unclear as to how it is spent. Will it all go to NGOs and are there enough of them to provide a service? Does an NGO get any of the money if it does not provide a 25% matching amount as seems to be suggested in the Minister's remarks in respect of co-financing? That would rule out many poor NGOs which are trying to do something in regard to the reception and integration of asylum seekers.

The amount of money stated here is €650 million for the second phase. However, the Minister's statement goes on to point out that the Commission's proposal will dramatically increase by 300% between 2008 and 2010. Presumably there is a lower rate of annual funding to the fund from 2005 to 2008 and then it accelerates. Will the Minister supply the figures which support the increase of 300% between 2008 and 2010 so that we can get an idea of the numbers coming into Ireland each year? Presumably, it is a total of €12 million including the 300% increase. Why should 2008 be selected?

In the matter of reception measures, the document mentions projects aimed at addressing the particular needs of women and young mothers. Is any of that going to the maternity hospitals? This area has been clouded. There is some confusion about services and the extra funding required by the maternity hospitals which caused them to approach the Minister.

The next category is integration, which includes further education, provision of information, support to those refugees seeking further education, and language support. I am not sure the language support mechanism is working. I understand that before the Minister's time, Trinity College was given a function of co-ordinating this area, but it has done nothing about it. Any work in this area is being done by the VECs or NGOs.

Acting Chairman

I suggest the Minister answer some of those questions now. The Deputy has put many questions and I am conscious of the fact that there is another meeting to follow.

To follow on from the Deputy's point, is it possible for the Minister to publish the list of people who have received funds to date? Has that already been published?

Deputy McDowell

I have provided for three years - 2001, 2002 and 2003 - a chart of the various bodies to which the money went. It goes to a variety of NGOs, some of which are of long standing and others of more recent origin.

Deputy Costello says he was unaware of the two directives. They were brought before the Oireachtas for scrutiny and have been the subject of regular reports by me at pre-Council briefings of this committee, although I do not think there was a pre-Council briefing before the last Council meeting. I presume that had something to do with the Easter vacation. There will be further scrutiny very soon.

Deputy Costello

What about a common asylum policy for the EU?

Deputy McDowell

That policy commitment has been there since——

Deputy Costello

What about the substance of it?

Deputy McDowell

All of that, and the negotiations, have been dealt with in my briefings to this committee.

Deputy Costello

It has not come before us for deliberation.

Deputy McDowell

The Deputy is talking about immigration, which is a different matter. Asylum has certainly been the subject of discussion between this committee and me.

Deputy Costello

I know it has, but not in this context. The Minister mentioned in an offhand way that he was hoping some progress could be made towards a common asylum policy, but what about the substance?

Deputy McDowell

If the Deputy checks he will see that it was not merely a casual mention. I have put all the documents available to me before the committee on a number of occasions, indicating the scope of the directive, actions we intended or did not intend to take and what we were trying to achieve. When I briefed this committee on my Presidency priorities I said that the achievement of these two matters were my priorities.

Deputy Costello

The Minister said that, but that was as far as it went as far as the committee is concerned.

Deputy McDowell

We had an interesting conversation at the time on asylum seeking but it generally focused on local rather than national issues. The substance of the directive is contained in the Refugee Act 1996, which was amended in the last 12 months. There are very few things we need to do to comply with the new directives. All of it is compatible with our law as things stand. We are talking about minimum standards across the Union.

The funding involved amounts to approximately €12 million, which is 2% of the total amount, €600 million, that is going to Ireland. That broadly reflects our representation in the EU in terms of population, although it is not exactly correct. I emphasise that my Department spends about €120 million per annum in the area of asylum. The reception and integration agency accounts for €70 million of that. The State, in the broad sense, spends roughly €340 million on asylum seeking. This is small in comparison to the large amount of money that is available to the State. It is designed to supplement rather than substitute for State obligations in the area.

Acting Chairman

That figure seems to have increased from €300 million since the last time the Minister mentioned it. In what areas have these increases taken place?

Deputy McDowell

A total of €340 million is the latest figure I was given for the last year.

Acting Chairman

The Minister mentioned €300 million at a previous discussion of the committee.

Deputy McDowell

I never like to exaggerate, but I think €340 million is the most up-to-date figure. For 2003 the total was €340 million.

Acting Chairman

Is that the figure across all Departments?

Deputy McDowell

Yes.

Acting Chairman

Does that include education, health and so on?

Deputy McDowell

Yes, and social welfare and all the others. That is the estimate. Of that, slightly more than one third - €120 million - goes through my Department directly. Just under two thirds goes through other Departments.

Acting Chairman

Does that include accommodation and so on?

Deputy McDowell

Yes, it includes all expenditure on asylum seeking.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

How many people does that cover?

Deputy McDowell

I understand we have about 6,000 in our centres at the moment but there are others who are dispersed in the community and so on, so I am not in a position to tell the committee exactly how many are being supported.

Deputy Costello

Is the figure declining?

Deputy McDowell

The figure should decline this year because the number of asylum seekers is down to approximately 40% of what it was a year ago on a month-by-month basis as a result of a number of measures that were introduced——

Deputy Costello

Has the figure dropped by 40% or is it 40% of what it was?

Deputy McDowell

It is now May, which means one third of the year has passed. A total of 1,633 asylum seekers came this year from 1 January to the end of April. If this is multiplied by three——

Deputy Costello

One hundred a week.

Deputy McDowell

It is down to less than 4,200 per annum, whereas when I came into office——

Deputy Costello

That is a reduction of 60%.

Deputy McDowell

—the figure was between 10,000 and 12,000 per year. In 2002, my first year in office, the figure was 11,634. In 2003 the figure was down to 7,900 and now it is heading towards somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 if present trends continue.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Is the average time spent by asylum seekers in the country now shorter because of faster adjudication?

Deputy McDowell

The delay rate has been dramatically reduced. I do not want to give a figure off the top of my head but I know the waiting time has been substantially reduced by new procedures and prioritisation measures and extra resources.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Does that mean that deportation costs have gone up correspondingly?

Deputy McDowell

They have gone up, but not at the same rate. The number of deportation flights has been relatively limited. They will be going up, however; it is planned to continue to deport people who fail to achieve refugee status and are not given humanitarian leave to remain. Our plan is to ensure those people respect our law and leave.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

If a person comes to Ireland from Africa via the UK, is he deported to the original country of origin or to the UK?

Deputy McDowell

In general terms, asylum seekers never admit to coming here via the UK because the first question they would be asked is why did they not apply for asylum in the UK so they are generally deported to the country of origin. No one ever says that he came via Heathrow and stayed in London for a week.

Acting Chairman

The majority would have come from London. Since we do not have direct flights to African countries, is it not amazing how the other EU countries do not live up to their responsibilities to deal with these people? They are supposed to be dealt with in the country of arrival.

Deputy McDowell

It is possible for Nigerian nationals to travel as tourists to the United Kingdom without a visa and then to arrive in Ireland via Belfast or by a flight or ship and then represent themselves as asylum seekers. They never indicate how they entered the State and they do not produce travel documents showing their arrival via another place. That is one of our problems in having a common travel area, we do not have a system of controls at every border crossing or immigration officials at every boat coming from Holyhead to check everyone. If there was no common travel area, it would be more difficult for them to accomplish because they would have to enter the State in a clandestine way while at present they can travel freely into Ireland. Having arrived in the United Kingdom as a tourist they can arrive in Dublin as a refugee. There is nothing practical I can do to stop that except to use the powers under the most recent amendments to the Refugee Act, which allow the asylum process to query arrival and raise it as a credibility issue.

The EURODAC finger print system only applies to people who apply in the UK and here, people who run two horses in the same race. Ordinary people who have decided to come to Ireland as their end destination would not apply for asylum in the UK and, therefore, there would be no trace of their fingerprints to compare.

Deputy Costello

How do voluntary returns work?

Deputy McDowell

Those who are refused asylum and humanitarian leave to remain are sent a letter requiring them to leave Ireland. They are given voluntary assistance to return to their country of origin by the State because it is much more effective if they acknowledge they are going home and to arrange it on the basis of a payment than to go through the process of arrest, detention and the organisation of a flight for the purpose of an involuntary repatriation.

Deputy Costello

Does some of this money go towards that?

Deputy McDowell

: Refugee funding does not go into that. This money is a grant to the International Organisation on Migration and it is purely for information programmes for those returning voluntarily. It is nothing to do with coercing people to go home, it is to make available to them information on their country of origin and if it would be safe to return.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

We are dealing with an EU document. If someone applied for asylum in the UK, was turned down and then came here and applied without indicating the previous application, is there a way to check that? Would it be checked only in the UK or across the European Union?

Deputy McDowell

EURODAC is a system where all asylum applicants across the EU must give their fingerprints. If a person goes to the UK or France and applies unsuccessfully then turns up in Dublin, he is required to give his fingerprint in Dublin and it is compared with the database across Europe and any correspondence is immediately detected and acted upon. It has brought that phenomenon to a halt.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Is it fully effective?

Deputy McDowell

It should be. Between 15 March 2003 and 19 March 2004, we transmitted to EURODAC 7,124 fingerprints for processing in Luxembourg. In the State there were 242 occasions of prior applications, 148 in the United Kingdom, 23 in France, 16 in Germany, 12 in Belgium, seven in Sweden, 11 in the Netherlands, five in Austria and four in Norway.

Acting Chairman

The details of the figures do not matter but of the 7,000 people recorded as seeking asylum, how many were funded to return home and how many disappeared from the system and did not respond to letters telling them to leave the State? It was stated there 11,000 such occasions between 2002 and 2003. Has the Department traced those people or have they just disappeared?

Deputy McDowell

I do not want to be accused of exaggerating but I recently asked in the Department for the figures for the percentage of people who make an application for asylum to enter the State and subsequently do not pursue it. Around 40% disappear after making their application. Of that 40%, many travel to the United Kingdom and many could be in Ireland, we simply do not know. It is a feature of a common law country that it is possible to exist without coming to attention.

Acting Chairman

Is the social welfare system checked? Have they also disappeared from there?

Deputy McDowell

Theoretically, yes. Everyone who applies for social welfare who is a non-national must produce his card to obtain it so if they are looking for benefit they would show up. A large number would apply for asylum status and then disappear and never progress the application.

Deputy F. McGrath

I welcome the Minister and his officials but I must strongly disagree with his handling of this issue. It is important that the Minister is made aware of the anger among the wider community. Even in this debate, which I welcome, the Minister is rowing back on certain issues. The Minister used the expression "citizenship tourism" and then said that he does not like to exaggerate figures but we need more information. A figure of 1,600 people applying in for asylum 2004 was mentioned - that would not even show up in the crowd at a premiership match in Tolka Park. We must get real. There is widespread misinformation and that is why I advocate voting "No" in the referendum.

I welcome the allocation of €12 million to the fund. It is a positive step but it is not enough. In the Minister's submission, he used the phrase "bearing the consequences of receiving refugees and displaced persons." There is a negativity in those words. I meet refugees and other non-nationals on a regular basis and they are attempting to present a positive image and phrases such as "bearing the consequences" send out the wrong message. We should accept a responsibility that this is part of our international duty.

Is it not the case that the definition of a refugee entails the legal status of someone who has completed the asylum process, has been granted the protection of the Irish State and can now live, work and remain in the State as a refugee with rights similar to those of an Irish citizen? Is it a fact that there are 47,000 migrant workers in the State and approximately 7,900 asylum applications? Can the Minister point this out to members of the public who are under the misapprehension that the country is flooded with asylum seekers and refugees? Sadly, the Minister and his Department have contributed to this negative image because we hear this message from non-nationals, migrant workers and refugees. I hear it in my office seven days a week. There is no point in the Minister sticking his head in the sand and saying this is not the real world.

The second myth I want to bury today is the idea that asylum seekers get free cars, mobile phones and drink when, in fact, they receive the social welfare entitlements that are available to Irish people. Can the Minister dispel the ideas that asylum seekers do not want to work or else that they are here to steal jobs? We have heard this type of thing when delivering leaflets on the doorsteps in our constituency. They are barred from working while their cases are being examined. Many do excellent voluntary and community work. That should be made clear.

There is also a view that many asylum seekers are bogus and have no legitimate right to be here. Some are found to be ineligible under the Geneva Convention but this ignores the fact that most are forced to leave home because of economic, political or social circumstances and the Minister acknowledged that in his presentation. It is important that the Minister again raise these issues of which he appears to be aware because the reality is not reflected on the ground. I urge the Minister to take these ideas and questions on board to make a positive contribution to the debate. I will vote "No" in the referendum because we did not have enough time to debate these issues.

Deputy McDowell

I realise that I forgot to deal with one issue raised by Deputy Costello. The masters of the maternity hospitals did not come to me looking for resources. I stated that unequivocally and none of them has contradicted me on that. The record shows that they did not seek resources from me. I have never claimed that they came looking for a referendum. I said that they approached me on several occasions in writing and otherwise, asking for something to be done about this issue. I explained that I could not take legislative action in the present context and that a change to the Constitution was required.

After the Supreme Court decided on the L and O case in early 2003 I hoped and assumed that would be a significant factor in reducing the pressure on maternity hospitals. I was surprised, therefore, that on 30 July 2003 a joint meeting of the Dublin maternity hospitals, to which my officials were invited, was informed that although asylum seeking was falling, two thirds of the mothers and children in hospitals were non-nationals. They were not asylum seekers but the problem had shifted from asylum seekers to non-nationals who were not asylum seekers. At that meeting I was told another maternity hospital would have to be built if I did not address the problem and that my Department was responsible for tightening up on immigration. I have left the documents in the Oireachtas Library for anyone here to consult. I have not been contradicted on those matters.

Deputy Costello

That is the area that has caused the most confusion. I understood that there was no request from the masters of the maternity hospitals for a meeting with the Minister but that the request was to meet the Minister for Health and Children and that in the process of that meeting they were referred to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who stated that they had pleaded with him to do something. The impression was given that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was their first port of call and that they needed him to take decisive action.

Deputy McDowell

If that impression was given——

Deputy Costello

If the masters of the maternity hospitals sought a meeting with the Department of Health and Children it was for resources driven by concerns about health. If they were redirected to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, that was for a different reason.

Acting Chairman

Was the initial meeting with the Minister for Health and Children which was subsequently referred to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform?

Deputy McDowell

No. Looking back over the documents I see that the master of the Coombe Women's Hospital decided to write to both of us.

Acting Chairman

Does the Minister have a copy of that letter?

Deputy McDowell

Yes and one can see that he writes in the letter to the Minister for Health and Children that the board directed him to write to me as well because of the particular problems they were having with non-nationals seeking access to their premises. He emphasised in that letter that the hospital had been in the van of taking an anti-racist and open door approach to maternity cases but that it was running into serious problems. That letter was prior to our meeting.

I am not clear as to how many meetings the masters have had over recent years with the Department of Health and Children but that Department asked me would I meet them and I agreed. It was not my initiative. I reiterate that they were not seeking resources from my Department. We did not discuss resources. We discussed several issues on which the record is very clear. One of the masters disputed the phrase that they "pleaded with me" which he said overstated the issue. On several occasions I was told that unless the issue was resolved lives would be at stake. It was made clear to me that my responsibility was to take action to bring this life-threatening situation to an end. That was the message the masters gave me unequivocally and none of them is in a position to contradict that because that is precisely what they told me. One of the masters has said on the radio that he had told me this. At no point were they in my Department to discuss resources because I could make no useful comment to them on that subject. The only thing that could be remotely characterised as a statement on resources was the statement in July 2003 to the effect that after the L and O case if my Department did nothing to deal with tightening the immigration laws a fourth maternity hospital would have to be built for Dublin. One could construe that as a statement about resources but it was not being canvassed as a serious practical option. It was put to me, as the record of the meeting shows, that my responsibility was to do something about the situation in which they found themselves by tightening the immigration rules for these non-nationals.

Deputy Finian McGrath dealt with the question of refugees and I am glad to confirm to him that his understanding of the position of a refugee is correct. The Refugee Act 1996 defines a refugee as:

a person who, owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his or her nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his or her former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it...

It goes on to exclude certain people from the definition. The Act extends that definition by adding:

Subject to section 17(2), a refugee in relation to whom a declaration is in force shall be entitled to the same rights and privileges as those conferred by law on persons generally who are not Irish citizens (as distinct from [any] such rights or privileges conferred on any particular person or group of such persons).

The Act also states that a refugee is:

...entitled to seek and enter employment, to carry on any business, trade or profession [in the State] and to have access to education and training in the State in the like manner and to the like extent in all respects as an Irish citizen

... entitled to receive, upon and subject to the terms and conditions applicable to Irish citizens, the same medical care and services and the same social welfare benefits as those to which Irish citizens are entitled.

Under the Act, a refugee shall also be entitled to reside in the State, the freedom to practise his or her religion, access to the courts and be members of associations and trade unions.

I dispute Deputy Finian McGrath's claim that I have given a different impression on occasion. I have always stated that there must be a distinction between migrants and refugees. Of those people in Ireland of a different colour, accent or nationality, who some might think are foreign, 80% are economic migrants and have nothing to do with the refugee process. They are welcome members of our community as migrant workers, students or in other capacities. I have also stressed that they enrich Irish society not just economically but culturally. I am glad to reaffirm this because I seldom get an opportunity to do so. I have said so on every occasion I have spoken on this issue in the Oireachtas.

Deputy Finian McGrath claims that some of these people are forced here by economic circumstances. I agree that is the motive of many asylum applicants. However, economic migrancy is not a criterion for recognition as a refugee. Deputy Finian McGrath should note that in 2002, refugee status was granted in 14% of cases where recommendations were made. This figure excludes the 40% who abandoned their applications. Of that remaining 60%, 10.67% were granted status on first instance with approximately 20% on appeal.

Acting Chairman

Is it 10% overall including appeals of initial applicants?

Deputy McDowell

No, it is 14% of cases where recommendations are made.

Acting Chairman

Considering that 14% is of 60%, the figure really stands at 8% of all initial applications.

Deputy McDowell

The Acting Chairman has lost me. Of the 14%, 10.6% is at first instanced. It is a small number in total of percentage terms.

Acting Chairman

Is that 20% of all the 60%?

Deputy McDowell

No, approximately 75% lodge appeals

Deputy F. McGrath

What is the actual number of people?

Deputy McDowell

I have a graph detailing the figures that I can submit to the committee. In 2002, it was 11,634 people. In 2003, it came down to 7,900. The total so far in 2004 is 1,600, which will stand at approximately 5,000 at the end of the year.

Acting Chairman

The committee would appreciate a copy of the graph. Of the approximate 11,000 people who arrived in 2002, most of those cases would be finalised. What is the breakdown for those who were granted asylum in the first instance, those on appeal and those who abandoned their claims?

Deputy McDowell

In 1999, 2,341 appeals were received and 1,269 were completed. In 2000, 3,700 appeals were received and 3,541 were completed, leading to a backlog. In 2001, 4,192 appeals were received and 3,000 were completed. In 2002, 5,297 appeals were received and 5,551 were completed. In 2003, 5,294 appeals were received and 5,031 were completed. Up to 31 March 2004, 1,300 appeals were received and 1,500 were completed. Tomorrow, these figures will be contained in an answer to a parliamentary question. I can forward the details to committee members.

Acting Chairman

Can the Minister get his officials to break it down into figures relating to the number of first applications?

Deputy Costello

Is it not true that a greater number of people are successful on appeal than first application, a reverse of normal procedures?

Deputy McDowell

No, I do not think that it is a reverse process. Is it preferable that the appeals system should be seen to reverse first instance results or that it should confirm the decision? It depends on one's point of view. If there was a higher success rate at first instance and a low rate of appeal, it could be argued that the appeal process was not worth much. If it was the opposite, it would be asked why was there a low success rate in the first instance. It is a no win situation. There is no mathematical reason they should be the same.

Deputy Costello

There is a dichotomy when approximately 7% of first applications are successful while 20% on appeal are successful.

Acting Chairman

We are being confused by figures. Taking the broad figure of 11,000 applicants, 40% do not pursue appeals which leaves 6,500 people who are dealt with. Of this figure, 14% are granted on the first instance which comes to 1,000 people. Approximately 75% of the remaining 5,500 will appeal. Of that 4,000, 20% are granted asylum, which comes to 800. In effect, approximately 1,000 are granted on the first instance while 800 are granted on appeal.

Deputy McDowell

Those figures may be slightly wrong.

Acting Chairman

Those are the figures you gave us.

Deputy McDowell

I do not want to mislead the committee. I came here to discuss the European refugee fund not asylum seeker figures.

Chairman

We will invite you back another day to discuss the figures.

Deputy McDowell

I am told that across the European Union it is not unusual for a higher percentage of cases on appeal to be granted than at first instance. One of the reasons is that new information is frequently introduced. The case is strengthened on appeal. It is not an appeal by way of a re-hearing on the same grounds. The applicant is free to bring new information in support of his or her case.

Deputy Hoctor

I welcome the Minister and his staff. My brief questions relate to the measure of integration mentioned by the Minister in his proposal today. I would like to know about the language supports and the difficulties encountered by the Department in that area. I am aware that the Minister seconded a significant number of staff to work in this area but I would like to know about the language supports currently in place. What relationship has the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform with the Department of Education and Science regarding the educational supports provided? What impact will the additional money make in those areas?

Deputy McDowell

There are language supports in the refugee process itself which are essential. In order to help people with their applications, everyone is given an interpreter service. That requires a good deal of co-ordination so that the interpreter can be available on the day on which the hearing is scheduled.

Regarding language supports for refugees learning English, I cannot describe the up-to-date situation, but I know there is a post in rea which is supposed to be filled by an official seconded from the Department of Education and Science. It may be that this position is not currently filled.

Chairman

Is the committee happy that we have had sufficient discussion on this motion, as distinct from the other items, and can we recommend it to the Dáil?

Deputy Costello

The Minister is getting €12 million and we have no clear idea of how that money will be spent. He has now told us that there is a common European asylum policy, though I do not know if the ten accession countries are involved. We have not discussed that.

Deputy McDowell

We have discussed it to a certain extent. I was asked how funding was coming in, and why it was that in the first three years it was at a certain rate, and will expand after that. That relates to the adoption of new financial perspectives in the European Union, and indicative figures given to us by the European Commission relate to the amount of money it feels will be available for this fund. I am looking three to five years ahead and can only rely on what the Commission tells me will be available. I assume that if it says money of that order will be available, it will be.

In a wholly open and transparent way I am now advertising to all of the NGO community in the Irish voluntary sector that these funds will be available and asking them to put forward projects as to how their activities can, on an additional value basis, be enhanced by such funding. They will then send in their applications, and the viable ones will be shortlisted. The allocation and selection of activities to be funded will then be done by a mixed committee of non-governmental and governmental officials in a way which, as far as I know, has not caused any controversy in the past. The method has been generally accepted as a very open way of allocating this amount of grant funding. There is no question of me getting €12 million and giving it to my favourite projects. These funds are made available to a committee of officials and NGO representatives who divide them up fairly between the various applicants as they see fit.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I am quite happy that the normal slush fund rules do not apply in this case and, accordingly, I am prepared to support the motion.

Acting Chairman

Thank you, Deputy.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

I am glad that arrangements have been agreed across the EU, the result of good work done during the Presidency. We still need a debate at some stage when the Government gets around to drawing up an overall immigration policy, taking all factors into consideration. That is badly lacking. I would like to see a full meeting on this issue at some stage.

Acting Chairman

Since the Minister told us that some progress has been made at the last Council of Ministers' meeting, which took place recently, he may agree to return before the committee soon.

Deputy McDowell

I will. I would be interested in briefing the committee not simply on my thinking on the matter, but also in hearing the views of other committee members. This is not a simple issue. It is easy to characterise the current arrangements, which are quite generous, and as Deputy McGrath said have attracted a significant number of people to Ireland to work, as hopelessly outdated and unacceptable, because they demand employer-specific permission to enter the State. I see the weakness there. The alternative is to have a green card system, allowing people to enter Ireland on the basis that they are free to work wherever they find work, and to work in whatever occupation they wish. That seems a lot fairer, and I am attracted to that alternative, yet it is not as easy as it might seem. There are many issues there, involving perhaps quotas from countries, how one decides between Africans and whether those Africans are free to bring their families. We have to think carefully about many such issues.

Deputy J. O’Keeffe

Will the Minister circulate a paper for discussion? After that we could debate the issue.

Deputy McDowell

As part of the preparatory process of the new immigration and residence Bill, I am happy to come before this committee for a preliminary meeting. My officials are currently sorely pressed by other commitments but when I am in a position to do so, I will prepare a paper for this committee on that subject. I stress that it is not my exclusive responsibility because the Tánaiste's Department also has a very significant interest. I cannot decide these matters alone.

Acting Chairman

The Minister might talk to the Tánaiste and get her input. Do I take it that the joint committee recommends that there should be no further debate on the motion by the Dáil or the Seanad?

Deputy Costello

No. I do not agree with that.

Acting Chairman

This is not something we put to a vote but people's comments will be noted in the report to be referred to the Dáil and Seanad. We will take it that dissenting voices can be recorded in that report.

Deputy Costello

We have not looked at the educational awareness side of the matter. That is a disaster in many areas. Only the VECs have made a contribution. Many of the people charged with duties in this area are not delivering. In the budget passed recently, the Minister's Department suffered a reduction in awareness funding. There are major issues to be addressed before we give the go-ahead.

Acting Chairman

The Minister will return to brief us on the Council meeting, particularly regarding this motion and the implications for it. We will then have more time and a more satisfactory debate. Is that agreeable to Deputy Costello?

Deputy Costello

I am reluctant to allow the Minister to proceed with it at this stage, considering that so many issues have not been discussed, and that there will no opportunity for a debate. If this goes back to the House, that will be the end of the matter.

Acting Chairman

No. The Minister will give a commitment to return before the committee. The motion will be concluded but the Minister will give a commitment to return to inform us.

Deputy McDowell

What is done with the money is really a matter for later. I am simply asking this committee to recommend to the Oireachtas that I be entitled to participate in the process leading to that money becoming available. We will have years to discuss what we do with the money. However, if we do not come to a decision on the matter, I will have to opt out of the whole arrangement - or not opt in - in which case, if the process slips against us, I will not have been at the table to defend Ireland's interest.

Acting Chairman

We have had a suggestion that it be agreed. The dissenting voices will be recorded in the report going to the Dáil. Is that agreed? Agreed. I thank the Minister for attending our meeting. That completes consideration of the proposal.