Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As we have a quorum the meeting is now in public session. Apologies have been received from Senators Gallagher and McDowell. Senator Diarmuid Wilson will act as a substitute for Senator Gallagher. I remind members to turn off their mobile phones or at least switch them to flight mode.

We have one specific item for the public session today which is an engagement with the Minister for Justice on the opt-in to the Council decision on a negotiating mandate for a readmission agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Kazakhstan. Members have been informed that there is an urgency to this matter and therefore, the Minister has not referred this item to the committee and instead is giving this oral briefing. We thank the Minister for taking the time to brief the committee on this matter in advance of the consideration by both Houses of the Oireachtas, which I am told will take place the week after next. The format of today's meeting is that I will invite the Minister to brief the committee on this matter and this will be followed by any questions or comments members may have. On behalf of the committee, I welcome the Minister and his officials to the meeting and invite him to provide us with an opening statement.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Cathaoirleach. This is the first time I have appeared before this committee as Minister for Justice. I wish the Cathaoirleach and committee well in their work. I was a member of the justice committee from 2016 to 2020 and very briefly, for a couple of months, in 2024 and have always thought that the committee does excellent work and is very effective in what it is required to do on behalf of the Oireachtas. I wish the committee well in the future.

I have been invited in today to give the committee a briefing on a Council decision that was finalised on 17 March authorising the European Commission to open negotiations for a readmission agreement between the European Union and Kazakhstan. As members will be aware, for the purposes of Ireland opting in to measures such as this, because it is a justice issue and we have to opt in under Article 3, we must communicate that decision and there must be resolutions of the Houses of the Oireachtas within a period of three months. There is a certain element of urgency to this because that decision and those resolutions need to be made by both Houses of the Oireachtas by 17 June. I had indicated to the Cathaoirleach previously that it was my intention to bring those resolutions before the floor of the Dáil and Seanad because I am conscious of the pressure of work the committee is under and the tight timeline in terms of meeting the 17 June deadline. What I propose to do is read out the opening statement which will go on the record and give an overview to the committee in respect of the reason for the need to come before the Houses of the Oireachtas to get agreement on the opt-in.

I will provide some basic information about readmission agreements before I start. Readmission agreements between the EU and a third country permit either the European Union or the third country to return persons who are not entitled to be in those countries back to their countries. What we are talking about here is a readmission agreement between the European Union and Kazakhstan. Should this come into force and should it be that Ireland is party to it, then if individuals from Kazakhstan were in Ireland and had, for example, claimed international protection and had been refused, we would be in much stronger position to return those individuals from Ireland to Kazakhstan because there would be an agreement in place between the EU and Kazakhstan.

I would like to brief this committee on my plans to seek approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas to opt in to a European Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations for a readmission agreement between the European Union and Kazakhstan. Readmission agreements play a valuable role in the fight against irregular migration by facilitating the admission to their own country of persons residing without authorisation in a member state. They facilitate and expedite the enforcement of return decisions in respect of irregular migrants and they also function as an incentive for countries of origin or transit to enhance their migration control. Effective co-operation on return and readmission is a key component of the EU's comprehensive, tailor-made and mutually beneficial partnerships with third countries. Ireland is currently party to 12 EU-level readmission agreements including with Hong Kong, the Macau Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Albania, the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, the Russian Federation, Montenegro, Serbia , Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of Moldova, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Georgia.

In order for any migration management system to function, it must have an effective and credible policy on return, including readmission. A call by the European Council in late 2024 for determined action at all levels to facilitate, increase and speed up returns from the European Union ultimately led to the recent publication by the European Commission of a proposal for a new regulation on returns. This proposal is closely linked to the broader pact on migration and asylum agreed in 2024, which seeks to create an integrated, sustainable and comprehensive EU migration policy that balances fairness and firmness.

Readmission is identified as a key part of the returns process in the Commission's recent proposal for a new returns regulation. Readmission agreements are also an important part of the external dimension of migration policy and are closely linked to the objectives of the migration and asylum pact, in particular in strengthening co-operation with third countries. Opting into this Council decision to open negotiations on a readmission agreement with Kazakhstan would clearly demonstrate Ireland's commitment to a common EU-wide solution to migration, a commitment that is already evidenced by our opting into the EU asylum and migration pact.

Bilateral relations between the EU and Kazakhstan are framed by the enhanced partnership and co-operation agreement, EPCA, which lays the foundation for enhanced co-operation in key policy areas, such as promoting mutual trade and investment, co-operation in justice and home affairs, economic and financial co-operation, energy, transport, environment and climate change, employment and social affairs, culture, education and research. The EPCA also provides for the possibility of negotiating an agreement on readmission in parallel with an agreement on visa facilitation.

Around 1,000 Kazakhstani nationals per year received an order to leave the EU between 2019 and 2023, although this number decreased during the Covid years. Member states have not reported major issues when returning those persons to Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan is not currently a major country of transit for irregular migration to the EU. However, this might change in the future, in part due to the instability in the region. The readmission agreement is expected to affirm that it will be applied in such a way as to ensure respect for human rights and the obligations and responsibilities of the EU, its member states and Kazakhstan under international law.

The agreement is also expected to contain language that ensures the EU and Kazakhstan will devote particular attention to ensuring the protection of the rights of persons after their readmission, in compliance with their obligations under international law. This proposal has a Title V legal basis in the area of freedom, security and justice under the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, which means that, unlike other EU member states, Ireland is not automatically bound by measures in this area. Instead, Ireland has the right to decide whether to opt in to such measures under Protocol No. 21 of the treaty. Opting into this proposal would be consistent with our declared commitment to participating in Title V measures wherever possible and a demonstration of our pledge to protect and promote EU values in the area of freedom, security and justice. Opting in at this stage before the decision has been adopted by the European Council will enable Ireland to opt in under Article 3 of Protocol No. 21, take a full part in the Council decision and vote on the negotiating mandate.

The three-month period for an opt-in under Article 3 expires on 17 June. If we were to opt in after the decision had been adopted under Article 4, we would not have a voice or vote on this proposal. I reiterate that this mandate relates simply to the opening of negotiations and does not entail any commitment by Ireland to any agreements that may be reached. Any agreement resulting from these negotiations would need to be subject to a separate opt-in procedure at that time once the details were known. I believe it is important for Ireland to opt into this initial Council decision so as to ensure our full participation in a negotiating mandate. Opting in would also demonstrate our solidarity with our EU partners and commitment to EU values, as well as Ireland's support for the EU's migration issues. I thank the Cathaoirleach.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for that. I want to raise a number of points before I invite members to indicate. The committee has not been in operation for long, and we accept that, but the timeframe that has been given is very short considering these issues. Once a decision has been made to opt in under Article 3, there is no reverse gear. We will then be locked into any decision that has been made.

I am sure a number of members will also raise concerns about the position in respect of the agreement we are essentially being asked to vote in favour of in the Houses in the coming weeks because it has been restricted or classified by the EU, as we understand it. We have been told that members will have sight of the Council decision, but I want the Minister to clarify whether we will also have sight of the annexes that form part of the decision. I would appreciate if the Minister could comment on the appropriateness of a sovereign parliament being asked to vote on a document that members of the public, who we serve, will not have sight of.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Cathaoirleach for raising those preliminary matters. I agree with him that the committee does not have long to deal with the matter. Although I am briefing the committee, that is why it is intended to bring the matter before the floor of the Dáil prior to 17 June, where there will obviously be a full debate. If it is the case, however, that agreement is not reached between the EU and Kazakhstan, that decision will come back before the Houses of the Oireachtas for approval. That will give Members of the Dáil the opportunity to vote on and consider the substance of any such agreement.

The Cathaoirleach referred to the ability to see the content of the agreement which the Commission has identified is restricted. My understanding, based on the information I have been given on why that is so and why the annexes have not been provided - I believe the committee has been provided with the articles of the Council decision - is that negotiations are due to commence with Kazakhstan and the information set out in the annexe is information the Commission says is confidential for the purpose of its negotiation tactics. It would prefer if that information was not publicly disclosed to the other party to the negotiations, that is, Kazakhstan. I will come back to that point.

The Cathaoirleach asked whether the annexes will be given to the committee. I would like to give them to committee members, but my understanding is that Ireland cannot give the annexes to the committee at this stage. What I can seek to do is to attempt to give my overview of the content of the annexes and issues therein. That might be of some assistance. However, we are restricted from providing the committee with the content of the annexes. That is not something I am particularly happy about, but it is an instruction that has come from the EU. As I said, I am happy to give the committee an overview on the broader detail and if there is a subsequent agreement with Kazakhstan, that will come back to the Houses.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have regularly expressed my concern about the erosion of sovereignty which naturally comes about as our membership of the European Union. It is my view that we should only ever cede sovereignty when we are absolutely clear that it is in the best interests of the Irish people to do so. The Minister will recall that Protocol No. 21, which is attached to the EU treaties and essentially provides us with opt-ins, as opposed to locked-in positions, in respect of EU negotiation mandates, largely came about because of the decisions of the electorate on a number of occasions to reject EU treaties. The protocol was put in place precisely in order to ensure that the concerns of many Irish citizens in respect of any erosion of sovereignty would be addressed.

In the wider scheme of things, this might be a minor issue in that it deals with one specific state, but it is a concession of sovereignty in respect of a negotiated mandate. The Minister cited Article 3 on a number of occasions which, as he said, essentially brings us into the negotiation framework. It also ties us to the negotiating framework.

The Minister can correct me if I am wrong but I believe Article 4 allows us to enter into the process at a latter stage or the end stage, when we can see precisely what we are voting for. I gather from his opening statement that the Minister would argue that Article 3 allows us to be part of the negotiations and that this is valuable. However, when advocating for the Article 4 approach, previous Ministers have told committees of this House that this approach would not lock us out of the negotiations and that, because an Article 4 opt-in was likely, Irish negotiators were part of the discussions throughout. Therefore, I would contend that Article 4 provides us with the best of both worlds in many respects. Does the Minister have thoughts on that?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The decision we are discussing here is a decision authorising the opening of negotiations. It is important to understand the limitations associated with the decision. It is simply about opening negotiations to try to reach an agreement between the European Union and Kazakhstan. I note the point the Cathaoirleach has made about Article 3. I believe the Article 3 mechanism is to our advantage here. The Cathaoirleach is right; if we get in under Article 3 in advance, we can be part of the negotiation process. We will also have a vote in respect of the proposed decision and readmission agreement at the end. If we go in under Article 4, we do not have any vote in respect of the decision and we do not have any say in the outcome of the readmission agreement. From Ireland's point of view, it is preferable to be involved in the negotiations leading to the readmission agreement as opposed to just getting the agreement at the end and only having the option to take it or leave it. We would not have the same type of input as we would have under Article 3.

As regards a decision to open negotiations, I am sure the Cathaoirleach will appreciate that, when you open negotiations, you do not know what the ultimate agreement is going to be. At the end of the process, the European Commission will present an agreement. Ireland will have a vote and a say as to whether we are satisfied with the agreement. If we go in under Article 4, that is it. You can opt in or not but you do not have any say as regards the content.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Callaghan and Senator Ruane are indicating. I have a couple of questions. I will ask them together. The Minister mentioned that Ireland is currently subject to 12 readmission agreements. Will he give us a breakdown of how many of these are EU-wide agreements? Are any of them bilateral agreements? I note that quite a number of EU states, including Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland and France, have all either agreed or are in the process of negotiating bilateral readmission agreements with Kazakhstan. Does the Minister accept that it is open to Ireland to enter into a bilateral agreement that does not tie us to a mandate we may or may not agree with, should we wish to?

I will ask a final question before I go to the members. The Minister suggested that, over recent years, an average of 1,000 Kazakhstani citizens across the EU were subject to return orders each year. What was the average or total number of these that occurred in Ireland? I will leave it at that.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The 12 readmission agreements I outlined are all EU agreements. The Cathaoirleach is correct that countries may enter into bilateral agreements. We have also achieved agreements with other countries in respect of readmissions. For instance, the Cathaoirleach will be aware of recent returns to Georgia. Those returns happened as a result of agreement between the Government of Georgia and the Irish Government. They are not related to any formal readmission agreement.

On the 1,000 Kazakhstanis who have arrived in the EU in recent times, I am informed that, since 2019, Ireland has received 12 international protection applications from Kazakhstanis.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Since when was that?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was since 2019. The numbers we are dealing with are very small but that should not prohibit or prevent us from deciding to expand the readmission agreements in place between the European Commission and third countries.

Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for coming here and giving us his time today. My questions will be really simple. Am I correct in thinking that the ask is just to start a conversation about the readmission policy?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is correct. It is about opening negotiations.

Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If we are in negotiations and do not agree to the next part or wish to opt out at any point, can we do so?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will have our say in respect of it. If we want to vote against it, we can vote against it as a country. As I said earlier, once the agreement is agreed, it will come back here. There will then be a vote and decision as to whether we opt in to it. As the Deputy has said, this is just about starting a conversation and beginning negotiations with Kazakhstan. We will have a say in respect of that. If there is an agreement subsequently, it will come back here.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand the idea and it sounds reasonable when you say this is just opening a conversation. However, a conversation is being opened that nobody has contributed to because we do not have the information. That means we are trusting a particular group to go into negotiations when we have not had any sort of public discussion with anybody on the content people want to see as part of the agreement. Does the Minister know what I mean? Neither the politicians nor the public have any say in what is being negotiated. Opening up a discussion and then opting in or opting out at a later stage really does not matter because we will never have that input because we are not part of the negotiation. There are serious questions around Kazakhstan. Even in recent years, it has imprisoned activists. There are questions about people's politics and LGBTQ rights. There are a great many issues. A recent Amnesty report highlighted the forcible return and the risk of further forcible return of activists from Uzbekistan. There are serious questions in respect of Kazakhstan in general and the fact that we do not get to engage in any conversation or to speak about human rights in Kazakhstan and what negotiations should entail and look like, rather than just opting in or opting out after the second stage of the conversation. Will the Minister clearly state why this is of any benefit to us when we can have a bilateral direct agreement such as we have with other countries? What is the benefit of being part of a readmissions agreement as opposed to doing things as they have been done before?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the real benefit, let us say many people have arrived in Ireland from Kazakhstan. They may have been refused international protection or they may be here through other illegal means. In order to return them to Kazakhstan, we need a readmission agreement in place. It is much more beneficial to have a readmission agreement in place in order to facilitate that.

On the Senator's first point about opening a conversation, it may not be of great comfort to her but I want her to know that this is not just restricted in Ireland. I accept the Cathaoirleach has mentioned this. In every member state, access to the annexe has been restricted. The reason for this is that all we are doing is starting negotiations. It may be the case that, as the Senator has said, a decision is ultimately made not to go down the route of an agreement with Kazakhstan. One of the key indicators or factors that the Commission will take into account will be human rights protections. It is my understanding that the Commission will not enter into an agreement if it believes there are not sufficient human rights protections in place in the country to which people are to be readmitted. We will ultimately have our say. It may be the case that no agreement is reached. If no agreement is reached, there is no great loss in terms of what has occurred. If an agreement is reached, as a country, we will have a say as to whether it is agreed or not. It will then come back before the Houses of the Oireachtas for Members to have a say on the approval of the agreement.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is saying that, right now, Ireland cannot return people to Kazakhstan.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have to get agreement from the Kazakhstani Government. We have to enter into discussions with it on a case-by-case basis. As regards returning people to countries, it is much more effective if there is an agreement in place that outlines the mechanism. This may involve having 30 days to notify the country and that country having to reply within the next 30 days. It is much more effective to have that procedure set out.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does Kazakhstan currently refuse readmissions from Ireland?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Senator knows from the numbers, we have only had 12 since 2019. My understanding is that only one deportation order was issued in respect of those 12 people. I suspect no one has been returned to Kazakhstan. We have to think of the future and the likelihood of this arising in the future, however. It will be beneficial to us if it becomes the case that there is a need for such an agreement. It works both ways as well. If there are Irish people in Kazakhstan who the Kazakhstani Government does not want to be there, they can be returned to Ireland. It will be reciprocal. There is a benefit to it. Like anything, there is far greater benefit in having an agreement that people can see, as opposed to a sort of informal discussion between governments as to whether this or that person will be taken.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister not think a case-by-case basis is extremely important when we look at the political climate in some countries? We are moving to a place where we are making decisions that will start to create a hierarchy under asylum processes. While we will not return people feeling war, if we have individuals from Kazakhstan coming here who say they are gay men or whatever and that they cannot live in that country, those types of nuances can get lost if we have this flat agreement. We are saying that if people do not reach certain criteria, we will not deal with them on a case-by-case basis, but rather use this other mechanism that triggers readmission.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I disagree. If someone comes from Kazakhstan and applies for asylum in Ireland through the International Protection Office, they will be able to put forward their narrative as to why they are entitled to asylum in Ireland. That is not going to be affected by the fact there is a readmission agreement. They will still be able to put forward their case. If it is the case that they are granted asylum because of the factors the Senator outlined, they will stay here. There is no issue in that regard. This only arises when we are dealing with illegal migration. If we have an individual who went through that process and, after going through the appeals, is told he or she is not entitled to asylum and is subsequently issued with a deportation order - which involves a whole process of assessment of rights before any such order is issued - it is only after that stage the contemplation of using the readmission agreement arises. The underlying rights of an individual from Kazakhstan claiming asylum in Ireland will not be undermined by this potential agreement.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the context of decision-making, we talk about future-proofing. While we only have 12 people from Kazakhstan now, that figure could grow. As Europe moves towards a much stricter narrative on migration, we may start to see a lot of negative decisions, even in very legitimate cases for asylum, because the EU is becoming harder and harder on migration. Someone may end up with illegal status because the criteria around asylum or migration have changed due to the political climate. I still believe a case-by-case basis is extremely important.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The fundamental rules in respect of asylum applications will not change. If a person is fleeing persecution or says there is a threat to his or her life or health as a result of being sent back to a country, those rules will still apply. While people may get a negative or positive decision, it is not going to be affected one way or the other by this readmission agreement. This potential agreement will only have application in circumstances where someone has been told they are not entitled to stay in Ireland. That is the only reason. All those rights, defences and protections will remain. Ultimately, the agreement concerns people from Kazakhstan who are not allowed to stay in Ireland. I am sure that on another occasion I am before this committee I will be told about someone from another country who is not entitled to be here and asked what I am doing about it. At least in this instance, in the context of a Kazakhstani who is not entitled to be in Ireland, I can say we have a readmission agreement in place and that he or she must be sent back under that agreement. If we do not have that readmission agreement in place, there is nothing we can do.

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not true to say there is nothing we can do. We still have deportations and the option for bilateral agreements.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the case-----

Lynn Ruane (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If someone is here illegally-----

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator can come back in later.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----by-case basis, while we could try to say to Kazakhstan that we want to send a person back, we do not have a formal agreement in place, which makes it extremely difficult.

Paula Butterly (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Notwithstanding that it is a restricted document, I have to say I agree with the Minister in respect of Article 3. It gives access right from the get-go. It is always better to be inside the room negotiating with others than to be outside looking in. I do not accept that there is any threat to or loss of our sovereignty by doing this at any stage. As the Minister pointed out, if and when there is an agreement, it will come back to us anyway and we will have an opportunity to debate it in the Dáil. While we have been talking about valid issues, at the same time, we are making too much of a deal about this, particularly when it comes to our sovereignty status.

Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish the Minister all the best in his new role. He outlined his experience on the justice committee. I was a member of that committee briefly in the last Dáil and I was on a number of committees before that. This is the very first time I have ever been on a committee where we have been asked to make a decision on something that we do not have all the information on. I do not know if that is standard procedure. I find it bizarre and very odd. We received a one-page briefing document that is not for public consumption. We cannot give that out to the public. Article 2 states the negotiation directives are set out in the annexe in this decision. These negotiation directives in the annexe have been withheld from members. I find it bizarre that we are being asked to make a decision on something that we have yet to see the full content of. Did the Minister say these directives had not been fully negotiated yet? Is that correct?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. No agreement has been reached with Kazakhstan. All this is doing is authorising the European Commission to start negotiations with Kazakhstan.

Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I still think it is bizarre that members are being asked to agree to something we have not seen the full content of and that is being kept from the public. Is the Minister comfortable asking Members of this House to agree with that?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would prefer it if I was able to provide members with the annexe. There is nothing enormously surprising within it. I cannot do that, however. It is not just me who cannot do so, but rather ministers in every other member state. Of course, a lot of them do not need to opt in because most of them are fully part of the-----

Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

To go back to the previous point, there is a question about the impact on our sovereignty. As sovereign Members of the Houses, we do not have the information the Minister has. It is being kept from us by the EU. That is a question of sovereignty, plain and simple.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no agreement here, as of yet. All we are doing is deciding to allow a person to go into the room to have a chat and a negotiation. That is all that is being authorised. In a way, what is in the annexe is irrelevant because it is the agreement at the end of the process that counts. When there is an agreement in place, or a proposed agreement, we will have a say in respect of it because we have decided to opt in. Members will get their democratic say in respect of that agreement once it is finalised.

Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will have that say whether we opt in now or whether we decide to do that further down the line.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The traditional way of doing it is to stand back and let the Commission go off and enter into an agreement with Kazakhstan. We would then decide afterwards whether to opt in to that agreement. At that stage, however, we would have no say or vote on whether it should happen or not. We would just have a vote on opting in to the agreement or not, without having a say in the content of the agreement. We are better off being in the room trying to agree the agreement, as opposed to just being a nodding head afterwards going along with it.

Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While we are talking about Kazakhstan today, will any other agreements be brought to the committee in the near future? How many agreements will there be? Will they follow the same procedure we are going through today where we will not have all the information we require before we make a decision?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While I am not aware of any specific countries, it is likely the Commission will come forward with other potential agreements in the future. I will listen to this committee if it makes a decision that it would prefer to opt in under Article 4 rather than under Article 3. I will listen to it, although I cannot guarantee I will do it. It is a balancing call. There are advantages in doing it this way. The real advantage in doing it this way is that we become part of it. We have negotiated it. The other alternative is just to let the other member states go off and negotiate an agreement. In that scenario, we sort of just decide to become part of it. That is not great from Ireland's point of view because we will not have had a say in it. That is where there is a real democratic deficit because there is nothing elected Irish people can do about it at that stage.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While I accept fully that we do not want to be nodding heads after the fact, it seems we are being asked to be nodding heads before the fact, which is a strange situation to be in. The Minister indicated that it is understanding that the Commission would not enter negotiations without some form of human rights framework as the basis of negotiations. How did he come to that conclusion? Did he have a conversation in this regard?

Is the Minister aware of examples where the EU has entered into these readmission agreements and then removed itself based on an awareness of a human rights breakdown or issue once those facts have been attained?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Gannon. To answer his question straight, I know this because I have been informed by my officials in the Department. It is in the negotiating mandate to ensure human rights is at the centre of this agreement. Regarding the 12 other readmission agreements I recounted that have been agreed, each of them contains human rights provisions. That is why it will be in this one as well.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We both know there are people being deported and sent back for various reasons to countries where there are not particularly high human rights standards. Hypothetically, a person who comes here from Kazakhstan, for example, may be coming from some sort of political conflict or have fled as a result of issues relating to their sexuality. We all know there are scenarios where they do not want to come forward because their family might be targeted in Kazakhstan. That is not going to be factored in here.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

People who come to Ireland from Kazakhstan as a result of the persecution the Deputy outlined will give that narrative to the International Protection Office and the office will assess their application. If it is genuine and the office accepts it, they will be granted asylum here. Their human rights are protected in that process.

This only arises in the case of people who have gone through that process and an appeal and are probably going through a judicial review, or those who just arrive here, do not claim asylum and are here illegally. We are just trying to say they are not entitled to be here and must go. If they do not go, what do we do?

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister knows we have different views on that.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I believe our views are relatively similar. The Deputy will accept as well as I do that if it is the case that a person is in Ireland, there is no human rights issue associated with them and they are not entitled to be here, unless we ring up the other country and ask them to take this person back, the best option for us is to have an agreement in place with the other country.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister will know as well as I do there are people here who are claiming asylum and cannot prove the violation they speak to for fear their country may be contacted and their family targeted as a consequence of that. This is a regular issue that happens within this country and others and it is particularly important when we are developing new frameworks.

When it comes to the concept of how we do this, it sets a bad precedent to ask us to nod along to something on which we do not have the full information - that is fair enough - or even as much information as the Minister seems to have when he is asks us to approve something. There is something very objectionable about the precedent that is set.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Regarding the first point the Deputy made, it is an absolute rule under the 1951 Refugee Convention that you cannot contact the country of origin of a person - hear me out on this - who is claiming asylum. It never happens in Ireland that the International Protection Office or the Government would contact the country of origin and say, "By the way, this person is claiming asylum for X." It does not happen.

With regard to the full detail, if it was the case I had come here to ask members to agree to a readmission agreement between the EU and Kazakhstan and I said, "Sorry, you cannot see the full detail of it", that would be unacceptable and outrageous, but I am not doing that. All I am asking is that Ireland be given permission to allow us to opt into negotiations and the European Commission to commence negotiations with Kazakhstan. We commence negotiations all the time and that is all we are doing here. There is a benefit in doing it that way for us. If an agreement is reached and we do not like what we see in that agreement, we can vote against it but, if there is an agreement reached, it will come back to members here who will be able to read the whole thing and have their democratic say.

Anne Rabbitte (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for coming before us this afternoon and I look forward to working with him in the coming years.

I am totally in favour of supporting the Minister regarding the opt-in under Article 3 for the simple reason that for far too long we and our constituents have been highly critical of Europe dictating to us here in Ireland and the fact that we have never been part of the conversation. Today, we have a Minister looking for permission to be part of a conversation in order that, when a position is reached, he can come back and share it with us. To me, this is logical and I thank the Minister for wanting to be part of the conversation to ensure Ireland's voice is heard. I am fully supportive, as are my colleagues here beside me.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Senator Rabbitte.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have no other Members indicating. I have a few questions but members can indicate if they want to jump in at any stage.

The Minister mentioned there have been 12 IP applications from Kazakhstan since 2019 and one was subject to a deportation order. Should I take it that the other 11 applications were approved?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not have that information at present.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Am I correct in saying the Minister does not know whether the deportation order was enforced? Does he know whether the person subject to the deportation order is in Kazakhstan or has left the State?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There was a deportation order issued to one person from Kazakhstan. I do not know what has happened to that deportation order or whether the person from Kazakhstan is still here.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When was the deportation order issued?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It was some time since 2019, so it happened in the past six years.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister does not know whether-----

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not know where that Kazakhstani person is.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that not part of the problem?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Absolutely, but it shows the committee the reason we need a readmission agreement. If we had 100 deportation orders for Kazakhstan, we would have to ring up Kazakhstan to ask if it would take these people back. If we have an agreement in place, we can send people back to Kazakhstan. I know it is only one case and is not generally indicative but it makes the point that if we want to try to return people to countries of origin, we should try to have readmission agreements in place.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a difference between return agreements and readmission agreements in that the latter covers citizens of third countries who might have come through Kazakhstan, in this case. Would it be fair to say part of the impetus from an EU perspective is not Kazakhstani citizens - the Minister indicated the numbers are fairly small - but citizens of third countries who have travelled through Kazakhstan? Readmission would apply to people from Afghanistan, for example, and a return or readmission to Kazakhstan. Is that a fair or accurate depiction?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not absolutely sure but my understanding is that when it comes to return or readmission agreements, it will be citizens of Kazakhstan who will be covered by that.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It will only apply to citizens of Kazakhstan.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes. Why would Kazakhstan take back people who are not Kazakhstani citizens? It will only take back people for whom it has responsibility.

There are issues with safe third countries and third country nationals being sent back to other member states. That is done under the Dublin III regulation, which is pretty ineffective. That is why there is a new returns directive coming in that we want to opt into. We will come back to the committee in respect of that as well.

There are also the return orders under section 51A of the International Protection Act 2015, which cover sending people back to safe third countries or and sending people who are inadmissible back to the country from whence they came.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is important. I have tried to understand the urgency the Minister is attaching to this particular opt-in. From an Irish perspective, since 2019 we have dealt with one individual who would be affected by this. Other members may have been in the Houses for longer than me but, in my experience, this is unique in that we are being asked to endorse something without having the full information available to us and even less information being available to the public. It is important we get clarification that the negotiating mandate simply applies to citizens of Kazakhstan because that makes it even more confusing, from my perspective.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is my understanding that it is just citizens of Kazakhstan. I can tell the Deputy why this is the first time for. For the other 12 readmission agreements, we did the Article 4 opt-in after those agreements had been finalised.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will come to that-----

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is different because we are doing it under Article 3 and will be part of it.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have a couple of questions on that but I want to deal with the specific issues in respect of Kazakhstan. As of last month, Kazakhstan was not on the EU list of safe countries of origin. It is not on the Irish list of safe countries of origin and I am not aware of it being on any EU member state's safe country of origin list.

I could be wrong on that but certainly it is not on the Irish list or the EU list. Is the Minister satisfied that Kazakhstan fulfils the criteria in Irish law to be a safe country of origin?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The advantage of being part of the negotiations is that we will be able to assess and appraise that during the discussion with Kazakhstan. In the discussions, I have no doubt the Commission will be asking if the human rights protections in Kazakhstan are sufficient. We will have a say and involvement in that. That will be a factor that will be taken into account. As I said previously, there is a human rights aspect to all the other readmission agreements.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I hear what members are saying that it is better to be inside than out. The difference in this instance is that once we are part of the negotiation, we are part of it. The final vote will be taken by qualified majority vote. Is that correct?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, that is correct.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At the end of the negotiation mandate, the Minister, the Government and the Houses of the Oireachtas might decide this is not in Ireland's interests but we will be subject to qualified majority voting in terms of the negotiation.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Cathaoirleach knows the point that there are separate options for the agreement itself.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will come to that.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Regarding the qualified majority voting, that ship has sailed not just in respect of this. That happens in many of our engagements in the European Union.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It does and in many aspects of our engagement with European Union, we are locked in because of the Lisbon Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty purposely provided for this protocol that actually gave us an opt-in in this instance. Essentially, the Minister is giving up that opt-in in this case.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Oireachtas will vote on it.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Of course. However, does the Minister accept that it would cause a diplomatic headache, to put it mildly, and could potentially be diplomatically damaging were we to opt in to the negotiations and then subsequently not opt in to the agreement? I am saying this as a member of the-----

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If we opted in to the negotiations and we were happy with the outcome, of course, then we would go along with it when it comes to be opted in here. The Cathaoirleach is talking about a scenario where if we decide to opt in to the negotiations, we vote against it and we are not happy with it.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will consider it when we look to see what is in the agreement. In a way, we are trying to look ahead to see what will be in the agreement that we want to play a part in negotiating.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As a former Member of the European Parliament, I can say that such a manoeuvre would causes substantial problems at a European level. It is for precisely that reason that we have we have both the Article 3 and Article 4 options available to us. The Minister says that it is important that we have our say. Essentially, it is the Minister and his Department because we do not know what is in the annexes that might require some amendment. Our question has to be: what say does the Minister want? What would he be seeking to change within the current proposal that he would need to have that voice in there and surrender that opt-in?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to ensure that a readmission agreement that is agreed between the European Commission and Kazakhstan sets out an effective procedure. Let us just leave aside the question of which country it is. Such an effective procedure should apply in the limited number of circumstances where a person must be returned to that receiving country. I am talking about things such as if we need to contact them within 30 days of issuing a deportation order, they then have to respond to us within another 30 days and then there is a procedure or a period of a certain time for us to give effect to it and they will have to accept the person back. At present, it takes a phone call to ask whether there is any chance that they would take this person back. It is completely informal and haphazard.

Throughout the immigration system, not just in terms of international protection, I just want to see rules so that when the Cathaoirleach, as a parliamentarian, asks me as the Minister or vice versa in years to come, we know the reason that person was returned is that these are the rules as set out in the readmission agreement - that we had to send them within 30 days and failed to do it. This system is inoperable unless it is a rules-based system. I know the narratives about people's human rights are extremely important and they will form part of the agreement. I would like to see that in the agreement as well. However, ultimately we cannot have migration policy decided anecdotally; it must be decided by rules. I think that is fairer for everyone.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Regarding why Kazakhstan would be open to such a negotiation, the Minister mentioned the 1,000 Kazakhstani citizens who come to the EU on average per year. I would hazard a guess that the proportion of EU citizens in Kazakhstan subject to the same is substantially smaller. The natural question relates to what is in it for Kazakhstan. I am aware there is a parallel process in respect of a visa agreement. Is it the Minister's intention that Ireland opts into those negotiations as well?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will come back to the Cathaoirleach. As for what is in it for Kazakhstan, I am not here to speak on behalf of Kazakhstan, as the Cathaoirleach knows. Kazakhstan may want to become an accession country to the EU and may want to advance its own interests, and reaching an agreement with the European Commission in respect of readmissions will, no doubt, be of assistance to Kazakhstan. It will not enter into this unless it is of some diplomatic or political benefit to it.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In respect of the visa agreement, is it the Minister's intention that Ireland would opt in?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a Schengen visa agreement and we will not be part of that.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

However, we could opt in.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We could opt in to it.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

However, the Minister is saying it is not the Irish Government's intention.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not saying anything. It has not come before me yet. I will give it consideration. I will be back before the committee-----

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not asking the Minister to do so; I am just asking whether-----

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Mr. Munro tells me we could not opt in to a Schengen visa agreement, but we could replicate it and mirror it with our own agreement with Kazakhstan.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is there any intention to do that at this stage?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Not at present, but who knows what the future holds?

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was just looking at one of the readmission agreements - it is probably a bad example - the agreement with Belarus, which I presume is suspended at the moment. However, it helps to understand the importance of annexes in final agreements. One of the annexes indicates that the EU is committed to making available financial resources in order to support Belarus in the implementation of this agreement. Does the Minister expect that part of the negotiating mandate will include the provision of EU funds and therefore Irish public money towards Kazakhstan at any level?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to make the Cathaoirleach aware that we did not opt in to the readmission agreement between the European Commission and Belarus; we are not party to that. Regarding EU funding for Kazakhstan, I do not know what might happen in respect of the future with Kazakhstan.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is it part of the negotiation mandate as it currently stands? Is there reference to financial contributions?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I mentioned in my opening statement, there is an enhanced partnership and co-operation agreement between the European Commission and Kazakhstan. That lays out the foundation for enhanced co-operation on policy areas such as trade and investment, justice and home affairs and economic and financial co-operation. That is where that would operate under that agreement.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If no other members have questions, I thank the Minister and his officials. There is some time between now and the scheduled Dáil session. I would urge a rethink. We have very important opt-ins. I heard what the Minister said in respect of the importance he attaches to having a common EU position on migration matters. I would argue it is important that we have a migration policy that suits Ireland and recognises the distinction of Ireland as an island nation where our nearest neighbour, with which we unfortunately share a land border, is outside the framework of the EU and yet we share a common travel area with it. I would have a fear for what I consider to be just the instinctive position now of the Irish Government to sign up to proposals at a European Union level as the first port of call. I ask the Minister to reflect on the Government proposal for a one-hour debate on this matter in the Dáil. Members who want to contribute to this debate should be entitled to do so but I have a sense that many will not be able to do so with the current proposed schedule.

I again thank the Minister and his officials for taking the time to be here.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Chairman and will take on board what he has said. Any proposal I put before this committee, Government or the Oireachtas in respect of migration is exclusively motivated by what is in the best interest of Ireland.

Second, regarding Article 3 or Article 4 debate, I am interested to hear what the committee thinks for future agreements, that is, whether it thinks the Article 3 route is preferable to the Article 4 route. If members have strong views on that, I will certainly take it into account.

I hear what was said about the hour debate in the Oireachtas and I will pass that on to the Whip’s office.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have a couple short items to deal with in private session.