I thank the committee for allowing time to discuss the motion relating to the exercise of the option which the State has under the provisions of the Fourth Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam to take part in the adoption and application of the proposal for a draft decision of the Council providing for certain areas covered by title IV of Part three of the treaty establishing the European Community to be governed by the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the treaty. That procedure provides for qualified majority voting in Council and the application of the co-decision procedure in the European Parliament.
The Netherlands Presidency has indicated that it wishes to have the text of this instrument adopted before the end of 2004. Accordingly, I am conscious that the deadline we have to meet is very tight and, for that reason, the co-operation of the committee with regard to today's discussion is very much appreciated.
At the outset, it is important for me to clarify the background to this proposal. The basis for this draft Council decision is provided in Article 67(2) of the European Community Treaty which provides, inter alia, that after a period of five years which commenced on 1 May 1999, “the Council acting unanimously after consulting the European Parliament, shall take a decision with a view to providing for all or parts of the areas covered by this title [Title IV] to be governed by the procedure referred to in Article 251”. Essentially, this means moving decision-making in certain areas which I will shortly outline from unanimity to qualified majority voting and co-decision.
I also mention, in particular, that Article 67(2) was the subject of a specific declaration by the member states which was annexed to the Nice Treaty. In the course of that declaration it was agreed that, in the decision required to be taken, pursuant to Article 67(2) the Council would decide, from 1 May 2004, to act in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 in order to adopt the measures referred to in Article 62(3) and Article 63(3)(b), and would decide to act, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251, in order to adopt the measures referred to in Article 62(2)(a) from the date on which agreement is reached on the scope of the measures concerning the crossing by persons of the external borders of the member states.
The declaration went on to state that the Council would, moreover, endeavour to make the procedure referred to in Article 251 applicable from 1 May 2004 or as soon as possible thereafter to the other areas covered by Title IV or to parts of them. The political decision to fulfil the Article 67(2) process was taken at the recent European Council in Brussels on 4 and 5 November 2004 as part of the Council's adoption of The Hague programme on strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union. This requested the Justice and Home Affairs Council, no later than 1 April 2005, to adopt a decision to apply qualified majority voting and co-decision procedures to certain aspects of asylum, immigration and free movement policies where it does not currently apply. The European Council's request took account of an evaluation by the European Commission published in June 2004 of the operation of the 1999 Tampere work programme in the JHA area and also of a recommendation of the European Parliament adopted in October 2004, both of which recommended that Article 67(2) be applied.
The Netherlands Presidency has now tabled a draft Council decision, in compliance with the request of the European Council, which it is their intention to have adopted before the end of their Presidency in December. Because this is another Title IV instrument, the committee will be aware from previous proposals which the Department has brought before it that, under the Fourth Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam, the State has an option to notify our wish to take part in the adoption and application of the proposal. We may also accept such a measure any time after it has been adopted.
The Government is of the view that it is important for Ireland to respond positively to the proposal before the committee today by exercising our option before it is adopted later this month. I understand that the United Kingdom is taking a similar approach and, at the present time, is undertaking the relevant procedures to enable it to participate in the proposal's adoption.
I wish to outline to members the scope of the draft decision and why I believe it should be supported. Article 1 essentially extends QMV and co-decision procedures to matters dealing with illegal immigration, internal borders, external borders, burden sharing, illegal residence and repatriation. In regard to those areas coming within the scope of Title IV of the EC Treaty, it covers Article 62(1), dealing with measures with a view to ensuring the absence of any controls on persons, be they citizens of the Union or nationals of third countries, when crossing internal borders; Article 62(2)(a), measures on the crossing of the external borders of the member states which will establish standards and procedures to be followed by member states in carrying out checks on persons at such borders; Article 62(3), measures setting out the conditions under which nationals of third countries will have the freedom to travel within the territory of the member states during a period of no more than three months; Article 63(2)(b), measures on refugees and displaced persons promoting a balance of effort between member states in receiving and bearing the consequences of receiving refugees and displaced persons; and Article 63(3)(b), measures on immigration policy in the areas of illegal immigration and illegal residence, including repatriation of illegal residents.
The proposed decision is due to take effect on 1 January 2005 provided it is adopted in December 2004. For the information of the committee, the reference in paragraph 13 of the Preamble to the application of the proposal to Ireland and the United Kingdom will only apply should either or both States indicate their intention to exercise their Title IV option in this regard. The draft decision does not include the Title IV provisions on asylum or legal migration within its scope.
In the case of asylum provisions, Article 67(5) of the EC Treaty automatically applies the Article 251 QMV procedure to asylum matters contained in Title IV once the Council has adopted Community legislation defining the common rules and basic principles governing these issues. Articles 63(1) and (2)(a) deal with the corpus of legislation designed to harmonise the common EU asylum system. All the main asylum instruments save one have now been adopted by the Council. These include instruments dealing with minimum standards for qualification as a refugee and for subsidiary protection; minimum reception standards; rules determining the member state responsible for processing an asylum application; the EURODAC fingerprinting regulation; the European refugee fund and rules on a scheme of temporary protection for displaced persons.
Once the draft asylum procedures directive setting down minimum standards for the grant and withdrawal of refugee status has been adopted by Council, and this is expected to happen by early 2005, all future initiatives in the asylum area will, in line with Article 67(5) of the Treaty, be subject to adoption by QMV.
The draft decision, in line with the request of the recent European Council, also does not cover matters to do with legal migration which are addressed in Article 63(3)(x) and (4). These cover measures on immigration policy in the areas of conditions of entry and residence, standards on procedures for the issue of long-term visas and residence permits, family reunification and measures defining the rights and conditions under which legally resident third country nationals may reside in other member states.
Article 2 of the proposal is a transitional provision and provides for the application of Article 251 to opinions of the European Parliament obtained by the Council before the date on which the Council decision comes into effect. These opinions concern proposals for measures in respect of which the Council will act, pursuant to this decision, in accordance with the QMV and co-decision procedure.
Article 3 of the proposal provides for the amendment of two Council Regulations, 789/2001 and 790/2001, reserving to the Council implementing powers with regard to certain detailed provisions and practical procedures for examining visa applications and for carrying out border checks and surveillance which are being modified so as to require the Council to act also in these cases by QMV. The State is not a party to either of these instruments.
The Government is supportive of the move to qualified majority voting in the areas coming within the scope of this instrument for a number of reasons. The move to QMV will make decision-making in the areas concerned more efficient in an enlarged Union of 25 member states. In addition, the move to QMV and the application of the co-decision procedure will essentially create an "equality of arms" between the Council and European Parliament in this area. This will strengthen the democratic nature of the EU policy making process by enabling the democratically elected members of the European Parliament to play a more active role in the formulation of policy in the areas of asylum and immigration. Under the co-decision procedure, the European Parliament essentially shares the decision-making power with Council. If Parliament decides to reject a proposal covered by co-decision, there is a conciliation procedure under which differences with the Council can be resolved. There is, of course, an incentive on the part of the institutions involved in the legislative process, the Commission, Council and the Parliament, to reach a compromise.
I should clarify for members that this decision will not impact on the provisions of the Fourth Protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty which provides the State with an option in respect of Title IV measures, the application of which stems from the common travel area arrangements with the United Kingdom. This means that the relevant measures to be adopted by QMV and co-decision will not apply to Ireland unless we opt-in to the adoption of the measures or to their application after adoption. Accordingly, the constitutional requirement to come before both Houses and seek approval for the exercise of the State's Title IV option will continue to apply. The proposal implementing QMV with co-decision in the areas I have outlined is also in line with the provisions of the new constitutional treaty, which will extend QMV to all immigration and asylum matters.
There is little doubt that continued and enhanced co-operation at EU level in the areas of asylum and migration management continues to be essential. Member states acting together in, for example, tackling illegal immigration and people trafficking have the capacity to achieve more successful outcomes than states acting on their own in this area. Following comprehensive co-operation in these areas at EU level over the past five years under the 1999 Tampere programme, much has been achieved but there is also a substantial programme of work waiting to be progressed.
In the area of asylum, while primarily dealing with minimum standards, a range of legislative instruments which I have outlined to the committee has been adopted providing for the first stage of the completion of a Common EU Asylum Policy in line with our obligations under the Geneva Convention. The Council put in place a number of important parts of the EU asylum jigsaw under the recent Irish Presidency of the Union. In the area of legal migration, several initiatives have been completed that seek to harmonise immigration procedures in the Union. Among these are directives on family reunification and on long-term residence for third country nationals. In addition, a directive on student migration is expected to be formally adopted in the near future. A general approach was also recently agreed on a directive on the admission of scientific researchers to the Union, which will support the Lisbon strategy to enhance competitiveness.
Complementing these admission instruments is a range of measures in the area of visas, which includes a standardisation of the format of visas and residence permits, including the introduction of biometric identifiers and a common visa list for Schengen countries. Work is progressing on the development of a visa identification system and the establishment of a regime of local border traffic at the external borders of the Community.
On illegal immigration, co-operation at EU level has included harmonisation of the financial penalties imposed on carriers transporting third-country nationals; a directive on the obligation of carriers to communicate passenger data; the creation of an immigration liaison officers' network; and a regulation on the systematic stamping of migrants' passports at the external borders of the Union. It has culminated in the adoption of a regulation providing for the establishment of a European Border Agency in May 2005, which will manage co-operation by member states at the external borders of the Community.
The future EU work programme in the asylum and immigration areas is also comprehensive and is set out in the Hague programme much of which will, of course, be dependent on the new constitutional treaty for a legal basis.
In the area of asylum and refugees, the programme aims to enhance the common EU asylum system by the establishment of a common asylum procedure and a uniform status for those who are granted refugee or subsidiary status throughout the Union. The commission has also been requested to undertake studies on the appropriateness, possibilities and difficulties, as well as the legal and practical implications of joint processing of asylum applications within and outside the Union.
There will also be greater emphasis placed on partnership with third countries, including countries of origin and transit, to enable them to strengthen the capacity of their national asylum systems, encourage respect for the Geneva Convention and generally enhance their ability to protect refugees on their territories.
The Hague programme directs the Council and the Commission to develop the debate on labour migration into the EU. The European Council, taking into account the outcome of discussions on the Green Paper on labour migration, best practice in member states, and their relevance for implementation of the Lisbon strategy, has requested the Commission to present a policy plan on legal migration, including admission procedures capable of responding promptly to fluctuating demands for migrant labour in the labour market before the end of 2005.
In the area of integration of migrants, the programme recommends the development of a framework, based on common basic principles, to form the foundation for future initiatives in the EU, relying on clear goals and means of evaluation. Comprehensive proposals have also been included in the Hague programme on the management of migration flows, including the fight against illegal immigration, the use of biometric identifiers in travel documents and the enhancement of EU visa policy.
The years ahead will contain many challenges for EU co-operation in the areas of asylum and immigration, with the Hague programme providing a comprehensive work programme for this purpose. While the new constitutional treaty will provide the main legal basis for enhanced co-operation among EU states in the intermediate period ahead, the current institutional and legislative framework will be enhanced by the application of the draft decision currently before this committee.
I hope the committee will support the proposal that Ireland opts in fully to this legislative proposal prior to its planned adoption by the European Council before the end of December.
