Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:

"PART 4

AMENDMENT OF INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION ACT 2015

Definition (Part 4)

4. In this Part, “Act of 2015” means the International Protection Act 2015.".

Amendment No. 4 is a standard provision that provides that the Act of 2015 means the International Protection Act 2015 in this section.

I propose to discuss amendments Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 12 together as they follow logically. They all address issues identified by the High Court on the inadmissibility procedure and related provisions. To provide context, under section 21 of the International Protection Act 2015 an application for international protection can be deemed inadmissible, meaning a person will not be entitled to apply for international protection, where one or more of the reasons listed applies. These reasons are that another EU member state has granted the person refugee status or subsidiary protection, a country other than an EU member state has recognised the person as a refugee and the person can avail of this protection or otherwise enjoys sufficient protection in that country, or the person arrived in the State from a third country that is a safe third country for that person. A safe third country for the person is one where the person has sufficient connection with that country, the person will not be subject to the death penalty or other significant abuse of rights in that country, and the person will be readmitted to the country.

Safe third countries must be designated by the Minister for Justice under section 72A of the Act. In order to designate a country as safe third country certain conditions must be met. In March 2024 the High Court found that a number of provisions relating to this procedure were lacking safeguards. The amendments tabled today address these issues. Under amendment No. 5 the International Protection Act 2015 Safe Third Countries Order 2020 is revoked as this order was deemed unlawful by the High Court.

Amendment No. 7 amends section 21 of the Act of 2015 to ensure an individual assessment is made as part of the inadmissibility procedure to verify the possibility to request refugee status exists for the individual concerned in the country to which they may be returned and, if they are found to be a refugee, to receive protection in accordance with the Geneva Convention. It also expands the definition of serious harm to ensure there are greater safeguards.

Amendment No. 8 deals with section 50A of the Act. It ensures a return order is not issued on foot of an inadmissibility decision where that order would be in breach of a person's fundamental rights. One of the key concerns of the High Court was that there is no mechanism by which the Minister could refrain from issuing a return order in this procedure where fundamental rights are breached. I am rectifying this with the amendment.

Amendment No. 12 pertains to section 72A of the Act. It broadens the definition of serious harm as is also proposed under amendment No. 7 in respect of section 21 of the Act. This ensures that wider consideration is given to what may constitute a risk of serious harm when the Minister is considering the designation of a safe third country under section 72A. This improved procedure introduces the necessary safeguards to the inadmissibility procedure and will enable the International Protection Office to resume the examination of cases under the inadmissibility procedure as soon as possible. This is absolutely crucial to ensure we maintain the integrity of the international protection system and provide for returns where an application is deemed inadmissible.

Amendment No. 6 is an amendment to section 5 of the Act. It is technical in nature and rectifies an error made in the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act on the service of notice under this Act.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are twin amendments to section 51 and section 51A of the International Protection Act 2015. These sections of the Act provide that the Minister shall make a deportation order or return order as the case may be regarding a person who has failed in their international protection claim. In the overwhelming majority of cases these provisions work very well. However, on occasion people obtain other immigration status independent of their international protection claims. For example, they may marry an Irish or EU citizen, they may have EU treaty rights or they may be part of the undocumented scheme. There are different strands happening at the same time. Under existing legislation we are obliged to issue these people a deportation order or a return order despite this being counterintuitive and unenforceable. It is not considered legally or administratively appropriate to make a deportation order to satisfy the sanctions where there is no intention to have the order effected and where there is an acceptance the order made will have to be revoked soon after. Therefore, these amendments will allow the Minister to prescribe certain types of immigration permissions which, when held by a person, would disapply the mandatory nature of these sections. I have consistently committed to making our international protection system more efficient. These amendments will save time in the process and allow the officials to concentrate on cases where deportation orders can and should be enforced.

Amendment No. 11 proposes a change to the criteria for ordinary membership of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, IPAT. At present, ordinary members of IPAT are required to have five years' experience as practising barristers or practising solicitors. The new proposed criteria would mean that ordinary members of IPAT would be required to have two years' experience practising as a barrister or a solicitor in this jurisdiction. Additionally, legal academics with two years' experience who are also qualified barristers or solicitors will be eligible for appointment. A further proposed change to section 62 of the 2015 Act is to allow for time spent practising as a solicitor or barrister or local equivalent title outside the State to qualify towards ordinary membership of the tribunal. Again, this will allow people with relevant expertise in other jurisdictions to be appointed as ordinary members. I propose these changes because, as we can all see, the volume of cases brought through the tribunal has been increasing significantly as the overall number of decisions by the International Protection Office on applications has increased. These amendments will enable a wider pool of candidates to apply, while ensuring the criteria for their appointment maintains the high standard of experience necessary for the performance of their duties. All would-be members would still have to be in possession of significant legal training and appropriate expertise or qualifications. Moreover, the proposed new membership criteria are similar to that of many other tribunals operating in the State.

See this speech in context