Frances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I congratulate the committee on its award in respect of its work on what is an important issue. Earlier this week, I launched the annual monitoring report of the integration centre. There is a great deal of work to be done in this area.

This morning, we are discussing the opt-in to the recast Eurodac regulation. I will start by giving some background to the regulation and will then deal with its general provisions. There are approximately six chapters to the regulation, each of which I can detail later if members wish. First, I will given an overview of the regulation.

This regulation was adopted in accordance with the usual legislative procedure, the co-decision procedure between the Parliament and the Council, as set out in Article 294. This regulation is an example of what is known as the recasting technique - what we in the Houses of the Oireachtas would call an amendment. It includes what was in the regulation before and the substantive new amendment, which we are discussing today. It was included in the range of measures in relation to asylum discussed by the European Commission and included in its communication of June 2008, entitled The Policy Plan on Asylum - An Integration Approach to Protection across the EU.

It is worth pointing out that this regulation was drawn up and agreed by the Parliament and the Council during Ireland's Presidency of the European Council last year. The Stockholm Programme 2010-2014, previously discussed by this committee, sets out the strategic guidelines in this regard for the period 2010 to 2014. Last week, the Council agreed the new programme for the JHA, which no doubt we will discuss at a future meeting of this committee. Following the Luxembourg meeting, I discussed with the committee the priorities agreed at that meeting. In line with the Stockholm programme objective the Union has established the European Asylum Support Office, has recast the asylum directives on reception conditions, procedures and qualifications, and has recast the regulations comprising the Dublin system, the Dublin regulation and the Eurodac regulation.

The script circulated sets out the history of Eurodac and the approach taken by Ireland to the regulation at different points. I will summarise this by saying that in May 2012, the Commission presented the third amended proposal. I have details on the other two should members wish to discuss them. Basically, the Commission presented the third amended proposal which included the law enforcement access element. The Commission noted that this element was needed as part of a balanced deal on the negotiations for the completion of the package of legislative measures in relation to the Common European Asylum System. I am informed that it was important to member states that this recasting be done if they were to move forward on this area. On that basis, it was adopted in June 2013.

The Office of the Attorney General has advised that the original opt-in to the December 2008 proposal does not cover the Eurodac regulation as adopted. Consequently, it is necessary to begin afresh the national proceedings for the recast Eurodac regulation. The recast regulation applies from July 2015. Up to this date, the original Eurodac regulation of 2000 continues to apply. Opt-in in respect of this new regulation which we are discussing today will commence in July 2015. The UK has already opted-in to the regulation.

Members will be familiar with the Dublin system, the Dublin regulation and the Eurodac regulation. The Dublin system is set out in detail in the script circulated. As members will be aware, in an area without controls at the internal borders, the question of asylum shopping or refugees in orbit arises, namely, who is responsible for managing the processing of the particular person in question. The Dublin system and the Dublin regulation is the mechanism which deals with this. The intergovernmental Dublin Convention was the forerunner to the Dublin regulation. Arrangements for determining responsibility for considering asylum applications initially formed part of the intergovernmental Schengen Convention. These arrangements were replaced with the convention determining the state responsible for examining applicants for asylum lodged in one of the member states. As members will be aware, that convention was called the Dublin Convention. To support the operation of the convention, the regulation was then adopted in December 2000. A Council regulation was also passed in respect of the establishment of Eurodac as a community-wide system for the comparison of the fingerprints of asylum applicants.

Essentially, what we are discussing today is the exchange of fingerprints. The regulation before us seeks to tighten up the various procedures, provides for new timelines and introduces the law enforcement element. The Dublin regulation is considered to be the cornerstone of the common European asylum system. As I said, it is the criterion and mechanisms for determining responsibility for an application for asylum. The regulation improves the Dublin Convention but is based on the same principles. There are not then any new principles in this regulation in relation to the Dublin Convention, except for the introduction of the law enforcement element and the tightening up of efficiency in terms of exchange of information.

The Dublin regulation was recast in June 2013 with enhanced provisions for the benefit of applicants for international protection, which include the personal interview to facilitate the process of determining what member state is responsible, the right to an effective remedy in the form of an appeal or review in fact and in law against a transfer decision before a court of tribunal, and strict regulation of the detention of an applicant, which is possible only when there is a significant risk of absconding. These initiatives were brought in to support applicants. The regulation provides that the member states responsible will be obliged to take charge of an asylum seeker who has lodged an application in a different member state or to take back an asylum seeker whose application is under examination and who is in the territory of another member state without permission. The transfer of an asylum seeker to the member state responsible is to be carried out at the latest within six months of acceptance of the request by another member state, and when the transfer does not take place within the six month time limit, responsibility lies with the member state in which the application for asylum was lodged. The timeline may be extended to a maximum of 18 months if the asylum seeker absconds.

I will now briefly outline the main provisions of the Eurodac regulation and the recasting of it in June 2013. It is a communication-wide information technology system for the comparison of fingerprints of asylum seekers. It is also a central system and a communications infrastructure. It is also a computerised centralised fingerprint database with that central unit and a business continuity plan and system. More details in relation to this are included in the script circulated. The principal additional elements of the Eurodac regulation include improving the efficient use of Eurodac in relation to prompt transmission by the member states of fingerprints to the central system; ensuring full compatibility with the latest EU asylum legislation; better addressing of data protection requirements; and allowing member states law enforcement authorities and Europol to access the Eurodac central database for law enforcement purposes.

Article 1 of the recast regulation states that the purpose of the Eurodac system is to assist in determining which member state is to be responsible pursuant to the Dublin regulation. The Eurodac facilitates the application of this Dublin regulation, which is based on the Dublin Convention, in respect of applicants for international protection, third country nationals apprehended in connection with the irregular crossing of an external border, and third country nationals who are found illegally present in a member state.

Article 1 goes on to state that the recast regulation also lays down the conditions under which member states' designate authorities and Europol may request the comparison of fingerprint data with those stored in the Eurodac central system for law enforcement purposes. I have given further details and the Chairman may not want me to go into all of those for each chapter. I have summarised in what has been circulated the key points in each of the chapters.

The procedure for comparison of fingerprint data with Eurodac requires member states to designate the parties authorised to request comparisons which shall be authorities of the member states responsible for the prevention, detection or investigation of terrorist offences or other serious criminal offences. Member states are also required to designate a single national authority to act as its verifying authority, which shall be the authority of the member state which is responsible for the prevention, detection or investigation of terrorist offences or other serious criminal offences. That verifying authority must act independently and ensure the conditions for requesting comparisons of fingerprints with Eurodac are fulfilled. Similar procedures apply in the case of comparisons requested by Europol. In exceptional cases of urgency, where there is a need to prevent imminent danger, the verifying authority may transmit fingerprint data for comparison and only verify afterwards, when all conditions are fulfilled.

I have listed the other databases which must be established, and they include the national fingerprint database, the automated fingerprint identification system of other member states and the visa information system. If negative results from these other databases are received, comparison with Eurodac data is permissible where the cumulative conditions are met. The comparison must be necessary for the purpose of the prevention, detection or investigation of terrorist or other serious criminal offences. The comparison must be necessary in a specific case and there should be reasonable grounds to consider that the comparison will substantially contribute to the prevention, detection or investigation of any criminal offences in question. These criteria are the various points which must be worked through before access is gained to the Eurodac database. Chapter 7 deals with data processing, data protection and liability.

The Dublin system is a cornerstone of the common European asylum process and is essential in order to avoid the phenomenon of asylum shopping and secondary movements of asylum seekers within the European Union. Deputies and Senators may be interested to note that during the five years from 2009 to 2013, a total of 683 asylum applicants were transferred from Ireland to other states in the Dublin system and a total of 488 asylum applicants were transferred to Ireland. That is a particular proportion of the total number of 7,822 asylum applications in Ireland during that period.

It is in the best interest of Ireland to continue to participate fully in the Dublin system, including the recasting of the Eurodac regulation. Ireland is participating in the recast Dublin regulation of 2013, following previous approval in 2009 by both Houses of the Oireachtas of the opt-in to the Commission proposal for the recasting. Opting into the recast Eurodac regulation would now allow Ireland to continue to participate fully in the Dublin system beyond the repeal date of 20 July 2015.

It is anticipated that Ireland will not have the necessary technical systems in place to avail of access to Eurodac for law enforcement purposes by July. However, the Attorney General has advised that if a member state does not make a request for law enforcement purposes, the regulation imposes no obligation to comply with the relevant conditions. In that context, the Attorney General has further advised, notwithstanding the fact that Ireland may not immediately be able to comply with all the conditions that apply with regard to law enforcement access, that it is open to us to opt into the recast regulations. I recommend to the Houses of the Oireachtas that approval would be sought to opt into this Eurodac Regulation Recast 603/2013 and it would be granted. I hope that information has given a feel for this regulation, its history and the use to which it will be put. I have explained why it is important for Ireland in managing our asylum process.