Pádraig O'Sullivan (Cork North-Central, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister to the House to deal with what is, at times, a divisive debate in the country at the moment. I have been listening to the previous speakers and, above all else, the one thing I would ask and expect of people in the House is that we would have an informed debate without the usual scaremongering and hyperbole. Let us just get down to discussing what is contained in the motion.

Since the Minister's appointment, he has always said that we need a fair and firm asylum process. That has been reflected in his work since he took over while, at the same time, he has to be cognisant of and compassionate regarding the circumstances in which people are potentially arriving into the EU and this country.

The motion relates to the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level, the application and definition of a safe third country concept and the proposal for a Council recommendation on a co-ordinated approach to the transition out of temporary protection for displaced persons from Ukraine. It also covers an opt-in to the proposal for a regulation establishing a common system for the return of third country nationals staying illegally within the EU.

I know the Minister is due to introduce an international protection Bill in the coming months to give effect to these proposals. The proposals stem from the EU migration and asylum pact, which creates an efficient asylum procedure in ordinary times, as well as in extraordinary times of migratory pressure. It also establishes a more coherent approach across the EU to migration, asylum, integration and border management. It is expected to come into force some time in 2026. The EU migration and asylum pact upgrades the common European asylum system to provide a consistent, fair, sustainable and efficient asylum procedure in ordinary times and, as I said, in times of migratory pressure. It is obvious that in recent years we have experienced peaks of that migratory pressure. The pact will also ensure a fair sharing of responsibility through stronger governance of asylum and migration policies across the EU. It is envisaged that the Bill will be published in June 2026.

Under section 72 of the International Protection Act 2015, the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration may make an order designating a country as a safe country of origin. By any “neutral observer” standard, since the Minister has assumed office, he has looked at various circumstances where those designations are appropriate and where they are not. In deciding to make such an order, the Minister has to be satisfied on the basis of the legal situation, the application of the law within that democratic system and the general political circumstances, that it can be shown there is generally and consistently no persecution, no torture, no inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and no threat by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. Fifteen countries have been designated as safe countries of origin under section 72, namely, Albania, Algeria, Bosnia, Botswana, Brazil, Egypt, Georgia, India, Kosovo, Malawi, Montenegro, Morocco, North Macedonia, Serbia and South Africa.

The asylum procedure regulation, APR, provides for the first time in EU law for the possibility to designate safe countries of origin at Union level and sets out conditions for the designation of a country as a safe country of origin. The possibility for member states to designate countries as safe countries of origin at national level is retained. That is crucial. There are fears that sovereignty and decision-making powers are being taken from us, but the situation could not be further from the truth. That designation of authority will still be retained.

A country may only be designated as a safe country of origin at Union level in accordance with the APR where, on the basis of the legal situation, the application of the law within a democratic system and general political circumstances, it can be shown that there is no persecution. The designation of a country as a safe country of origin may be made with exceptions for specific parts of a territory or clearly identifiable categories of persons within that jurisdiction. The assessment of whether a country is a safe country of origin in accordance with the APR must be based on a range of relevant sources of information, including information from fellow member states, the EU Agency for Asylum, the European External Action Service or even the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

These decisions will not be made on a whim. They will obviously be done in a compassionate and sympathetic way. I think the way the Minister has started is the way he means to go on, and I have full confidence that he will do that in an unbiased and neutral manner.

It is also proposed to designate all EU candidate countries as safe countries, namely, Albania, Bosnia, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey and Ukraine. They would be designated safe countries except where the following circumstances apply: there is a serious threat to civilians by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict; restrictive measures or sanctions have been adopted in view of the country's actions; and the EU-wide recognition rate pertaining to the applicants from the country is higher than 20%. Additionally, the proposal will also designate Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco and Tunisia as safe countries of origin.

In relation to the regulation amending the APR as regards the application of the safe third country concept, the safe third country concept as provided for in the EU asylum legislation allows member states to determine that an international protection application is inadmissible when the applicant could receive effective protection in a safe third country that is considered safe for the applicant. Current EU and Irish law requires a connection between the applicant and the safe third country concerned on which basis it would be reasonable for the person to be returned to the country. It is not, as perhaps has been implied in the House by some, that we are going to be indiscriminately dropping people back into random countries. It is clearly defined in the amending regulations what way this process will happen.

Section 72A of the International Protection Act 2015 also provides for the Minister to designate, by order, a country as a safe third country.

Section 21(2)(c) of the 2015 Act provides that, where an applicant for international protection arrived in the State from a safe third country, there are grounds for determining the application to be inadmissible.

At EU level, a country may only be designated as a safe third country where non-nationals' lives and liberty are not threatened in that country on account of race, religion, nationality or membership of a particular social group, non-nationals face no real risk of serious harm as defined in the qualification regulations, and non-nationals are protected against refoulement in accordance with the Geneva Convention and against removal and violation of the right to protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

This is, as I said at the outset, an emotive issue. I urge that all people engage in this debate in a responsible way.

Our system has had its challenges and, let us be honest, it needs reform. The migration pact that has been proposed and that we have agreed to move forward with is at this moment in time the only show in town when it comes to dealing with migration in this country in a fair, equitable and compassionate way.

See this speech in context