Ba mhaith liom míle buíochas a ghabháil leis an gCeannaire Gníomhach as ucht na díospóireachta seo a ghlacadh inniu. Gabhaim buíochas freisin leis an Aire as ucht bheith anseo chun an díospóireacht a thógáil. I welcome the fact that we have been given the opportunity to debate the Eurodac proposal. It is important that we get the chance in the Seanad to debate these things. I note that it is seen to be very important to opt into this particular directive, but also that the Government seems to take an à
la carte approach to the European directives dealing with asylum. The directive on the right to work is another one we should opt into, yet we have not done so. Perhaps we can talk on another date about the fact that some directives are opted into while others are not.
The taking of the fingerprints of asylum seekers was a significant step when it was first introduced. It was already a sensitive issue for many. Many did not want to see asylum seekers undergo this additional invasion of privacy. It was deemed justifiable and necessary at the time to facilitate the establishment of the Dublin chain of responsibility in the common asylum system. The current proposal as outlined represents a major additional step and allows fingerprints to be used outside the Dublin regime. However, the arguments of the Commission as to why this is necessary and proportionate are insufficient. The practical necessity and importance of the measure have not been stated clearly. In fact, it appears to many that uses will be made of the measure which are outside the aim of the original directive. The effect of the measure could be very stigmatising, implying that asylum seekers are more criminal than others. It is a problem we have in the asylum context in general.
I note that the European Data Protection Supervisor issued a critical opinion on 5 September 2012 saying the procedure followed does not do justice to the fundamental nature of the proposal and that a new impact assessment should have been performed. It was further indicated that the necessity and proportionality of access to Eurodac data for law enforcement purposes are insufficiently demonstrated, that the proposal does not consider sufficiently the implications of the use of Eurodac data for law enforcement purposes with regard to applicable data protection law, and that the proposal does not consider the new legal basis for data protection since the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty and ongoing data protection reform. The previous system was imagined to administer asylum applications, which it was supposed to make easier. It is obvious that the data is sought to be used now by law enforcement agencies and Europol. We are being given anecdotal evidence of success in combating crime, which is lauded as the reason we need to do this. We are told certain high-profile criminals and criminal gangs will be stopped. However, the wholesale sharing of information is a matter of concern for me. We all want to combat organised crime, trafficking, etc., but the wholesale sharing of information gives one the sense that all asylum seekers are being put into the same basket.
The European Data Protection Supervisor has argued that the need for this has not been sufficiently demonstrated and has called for an impact assessment which looks at the whole policy. Privacy International called for a delay of the proposal until proper, evidence-based impact assessments had been carried out. Privacy International has also raised concerns about the right to privacy and the breaches of human rights which might be occasioned by the new system. The UNHCR has recommended the taking of board of certain safeguards before the introduction of a facility to search Eurodac with latent fingerprints so that the possibility of error in matching fingerprints and wrongful implication of asylum seekers in criminal investigations is fully examined and eliminated to the greatest extent possible. The UNHCR has also recommended that the provision on the prohibition of the transfer of information on asylum seekers or refugees to third countries be reinforced and clarified to eliminate any gaps in the protection of data; that the potential for stigmatisation of asylum seekers as a particularly vulnerable group be evaluated; and that the scope of the proposed instruments be limited to cases in which there is substantial suspicion that the perpetrator or suspect has applied for asylum and the applicant is informed that his or her data may be used for the purposes of a criminal investigation. The general sense is that although the system in which fingerprints are used to identify asylum seekers to help speedily administer claims was acceptable initially, we are going much further now. There are concerns around the step being taken and whether we are going in the right direction.
There is an issue with regard to the way we deal with asylum seekers across the EU. I was at an event in Greece recently where the issue was raised. An MP from Greece said it was felt that Greece was being used as a dustbin for souls in the asylum seeking process due to a lack of coherence across the 27 EU member states in dealing with the pressures of an influx of asylum seekers. The Irish system involves adopting a guilty-until-proven-innocent approach to the consideration of asylum claims. Asylum seekers are stigmatised and our system makes them feel like criminals. Having spoken to people in direct provision asylum centres here, I note that they are very critical of the approach taken by the State, as are the NGOs that work with them. This is another extension of that system. Many of the asylum seekers I have met are highly competent, professional, educated people while others are normal people escaping from terrible situations. They feel they are treated like criminals in the Irish asylum system. Being put into the direct provision system is akin to their being put into an open prison. The difference is that in an open prison, one knows when the end of one's sentence will be. They do not feel that is the case with direct provision. They also say that being in the Irish system exacerbates the issues they have with regard to mental health, human rights and the ability to progress personally with work and education.
These are some of the issues I wanted to raise in this debate. The Minister can address a number of these concerns. The European system seems to think that this type of measure is a deterrent to anybody might want to come to the EU to seek asylum. I do not think that is the best practice from an international perspective. If we found ourselves in a position where we had to flee our country and were looking for asylum, we would expect to be treated in a much more humane manner. Therefore, the concerns we are raising here are valid and backed up by international commentators with expertise in the area. Certainly we should think twice before taking the move.
