Colm Brophy (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option or discretion under Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to take part in the adoption and application of the following proposed measure: Recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations on an agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Kazakhstan on readmission, a copy of which was circulated to each member of Dáil Éireann on 29th May, 2025.

This motion seeks Dáil Éireann’s approval to opt into 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 may 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.

The annexe to the draft Council decision has been deemed restricted by the European Commission. The annexe contains information of a particularly sensitive nature given that it relates to a negotiating mandate with a third country. As a consequence, hard copies of the draft Council decision itself have been made physically available to the Members of the Houses for the purpose of debating the motion. The Attorney General’s office has confirmed that this method of circulation meets the requirements of Article 29.4.7° of the Constitution. It should be noted that once a readmission agreement has been concluded with Kazakhstan, Ireland’s participation in that agreement will be subject to a separate opt-in process under Protocol 21. At that point, the text of the full agreement will be made available to Members before seeking approval to participate. What we are seeking to do at this moment is simply to participate in the adoption of a negotiating mandate and ensure Ireland has a seat at the table during the negotiation of the agreement itself.

Ireland is currently party to 12 EU-level readmission agreements including with Hong Kong, the Macao Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Albania, Sri Lanka, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Montenegro, the Republic of Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of North 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 EU Commission of a proposal for a new regulation on returns. This proposal is part of 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 an external dimension of migration policy and are closely linked to the objectives of the migration and asylum pact, particularly 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. The bilateral relations between the EU and Kazakhstan are framed by an enhanced partnership and co-operation agreement, 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 provides for the possibility of negotiating an agreement on readmission in parallel with an agreement on visa facilitation. Approximately 1,000 Kazakhstan nationals per year received an order to leave the EU between 2019 and 2023 although this number decreased during the Covid-19 pandemic, and 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 instability in the region.

The readmission agreement is expected to reaffirm that it will be applied in such a way as to ensure respect for both human rights and for 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 that the EU and Kazakhstan will devote particular attention to ensuring the protection of the rights of the person after their readmission in compliance with their obligations under international law.

This proposal has Title V legal status 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 into such measures under Protocol 21 to 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, would enable Ireland to opt in under Article 3 of Protocol 21 and 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 of the Protocol expires on 17 June. If we were to opt in after the decision has been adopted, under Article 4 of the Protocol we would not have a 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 agreement that may be reached. Any agreement resulting from these negotiations would need to be subject to a separate opt-in procedure at the 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 any negotiating mandate. Opting in would also demonstrate our solidarity with our EU partners and our commitment to EU values, as well as Ireland’s support for EU migration issues.

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

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. At the outset I say that Sinn Féin recognises that return and readmission agreements are a crucial part of having a managed migration system. We have been clear that where any person is not entitled to be in Ireland, they should be returned safely, and deportation orders should be both enforced and tracked. Such return and readmission agreements can be done on a bilateral basis, so they are not required to be negotiated by the European Union on behalf of Ireland. In respect of Kazakhstan, it is notable that Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Switzerland currently have such bilateral agreements. What we are debating today is a motion to opt into a European Council decision authorising the opening of negotiations for a readmission agreement between the EU and Kazakhstan.

Sinn Féin is concerned about this proposal, but more concerned about the approach being taken. What is essentially being asked, uniquely in my experience, is that the Oireachtas is expected to rubber-stamp a motion without having sight of the actual proposal. This is unprecedented.

I consider it an insult to a sovereign Parliament. While members of the committee were briefed on and provided with hard copies of the draft Council resolution, the resolution, as the Minister of State knows, contained virtually no information. We have no information on what funding or other benefits the EU is offering Kazakhstan as part of the negotiations. While Members of the Dáil have very little information, the public has even less. This is a sovereign Parliament and it is our job to stand up and defend Irish sovereignty. We should not do something simply because the EU wants us to do it or to ingratiate ourselves with the EU. We should only act if it is in Ireland's best interests to do so. To decide whether something is in Ireland's best interests, the Oireachtas has to have all the facts. It is also our job to ensure protocols put into EU treaties, including the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, better known as the Lisbon treaty, reflect the concerns of the Irish people and that those concerns are respected and not watered down over time. Protecting and maximising Irish sovereignty in the context of EU integration is important. We must be on guard against mission creep from the EU, which further undermines Irish sovereignty, and against attempts to undermine protections that were crucial to Ireland's signing up to treaties involving further and deeper integration.

We should recall Ireland voted against two EU treaties in referendums: the Treaty of Nice in 2001 and the Lisbon treaty in 2008. At the heart of both of these rejections was the fear of a loss of sovereignty on key issues of concern to the Irish people. Those concerns are just as important and valid today as when the treaties were being debated, if not more so. Protocol No. 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union came into effect in its current form with the Lisbon treaty in December 2009. The protocol provides Ireland with an opt-out and a choice to opt in to legislation governing the areas of freedom, security and justice on a case-by-case basis. They are crucial protections for Ireland. Without these explicit protections and protocols, there is every reason to believe the people of this State would not have endorsed the Lisbon treaty when it was put to them a second time.

The Department of justice recently published a review of the operation of Protocol No. 21. I think the approach today is related to that review and its publication. The review suggests some moves away from the spirit of the protocol. In particular, the retrospective review of all Protocol No. 21 opt-outs, to see if Ireland can opt in to things it has previously stayed out of, suggests a subtle but important, and perhaps dangerous, change in approach. We have learned from our years of EU membership that once we cede sovereignty, we do not get it back. We have to be cognisant of the implications for sovereignty of proposals such as that before us today on the review of Protocol No. 21.

We must be aware of Ireland's situation, which is unique in Europe. We are a common law jurisdiction and part of a common travel area on an island that is partitioned and part of which is still under British rule. What the European Commission is seeking might be put in simple terms, as the Minister of State has put it, as a mandate to negotiate an agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Kazakhstan on readmission. The Government argues that opting in at this stage would further demonstrate Ireland's commitment to a common EU-wide solution to migration. That is a very weak argument in favour of something for which full information is denied to Members of the Oireachtas and to the Irish people, considering we can opt in to this at a later stage when we have further detail and the full facts can be divulged. We are expected to decide on this motion despite the restricted nature of it. We are being asked to endorse something we, as elected representatives in the Parliament of a sovereign State, are not being given details of. If somebody suggested this scenario at the time of the European treaty debates we have mentioned, they would have been laughed at and described as far-fetched exaggerators.

I have a hard copy of what Members of the Oireachtas have been given: one page with virtually no detail. Crucially, it says the negotiating directives are set out in the annexe to the decision. Essentially, we have been given a cover note and are asked to endorse a negotiation based on an annexe which Members do not have sight of. That is dangerous in the extreme, regardless of the basis for the negotiation. I am shocked any Minister, never mind a Fianna Fáil Minister for justice, would bring such a proposal to this House. I was very surprised that we can get no clarity on what is on the table from a European perspective. We do not know what is being offered to Kazakhstan in terms of funding or other benefits in this negotiation. Is there going to be a cost? There has to be something in it for Kazakhstan. The notion Kazakhstan has an issue with EU citizens in its territory that it wants to return is far-fetched. I was surprised when the Minister for justice suggested in the committee that perhaps one of the reasons Kazakhstan would enter this was that it, a central Asian state, may want to become an accession state at some stage. There is a real need for discussion about what the EU is and what it is becoming. Any expansion into central Asia would be a little absurd. Sinn Féin has been clear the European Union should proceed with further expansion only where it does not undermine the position and influence of existing member states, particularly small, peripheral states such as Ireland. Certainly, such expansion should not be used as an excuse to further remove unanimity or representation within the European Commission.

In terms of the proposal before us today, I have said Members of the Oireachtas do not have the full information and the public has even less. The senior Minister himself appears unclear on the contents of the proposal. When he came before the justice committee and briefed members on 29 May, he stated categorically that this just related to citizens of Kazakhstan. In fact, he said that three times when I questioned him on it. However, the briefing note circulated by the Whip's office mentions third country nationals and stateless persons, as well as facilitating the transit of persons being returned to a third country. That is completely contradictory to what the Minister told the committee. This is a significant discrepancy and shows this is being rushed out of a desire to please the EU without even the Minister being clear as to what exactly we are being asked to endorse.

I accept a readmission agreement with Kazakhstan may not seem to be a huge issue, especially considering the small numbers of nationals of Kazakhstan who have come here in recent years. In committee the Minister indicated 12 in total since 2019 had sought international protection; only one person has been subject to a deportation order. However, it clearly impacts on larger numbers when it is related to third country nationals and stateless persons. Under Article 3 of Protocol No. 21, as the Minister of State set out, Ireland can opt in within three months of the proposal being presented to the Council or - and this is crucial - can opt in under Article 4 at any time after a proposal's adoption. Article 29.4.7° of the Constitution requires Oireachtas approval for an opt-in. Under Article 3, the argument goes, we get to participate in negotiations and vote on the measure, but under Article 3 we are also bound by the outcome which is decided by qualified majority voting. We could end up with an outcome we do not agree with. Ireland has no veto and could be bound by the resulting measures, even if they run contrary to our national interests.

We in Sinn Féin are concerned about the wider implications of opting in to Article 3 negotiations, especially when we do not have full information on what is being negotiated by the EU with Kazakhstan. The Minister argued it is beneficial to opt in under Article 3 but during previous debates in which we discussed Article 4 opt-ins, Ministers have come before the Dáil and advocated opting in to measures under Article 4, when we know what we are voting for, and they have said we were not prevented or locked out of the process. The EU obviously knows an Article 4 opt-in might be likely so it has told the Dáil that Irish negotiators were part of the discussions throughout.

It is, therefore, our view, based on what we know and, just as importantly, what we do not know due to the restricted nature of the proposal before us, that it would be much more appropriate for the Dáil to debate whether we should opt into any agreement with Kazakhstan under Article 4, which would then allow us to enter the process at a later stage when we know precisely what we are voting for. That is what this House is entitled to and what the Irish people would expect.

The difficulty I have in a wider sense is with the Government's moves to outsource migration policy to the EU. That undermines our sovereignty and means that decisions taken at an EU level could have serious implications for Ireland. We will not have the flexibility that future Ministers for justice might need because EU decisions on migration policy will not always consider Ireland's unique circumstances, as I have set out, and will not always be in our best interests.

To give an example, it has been reported today that the Irish Government intends, when the EU justice and home affairs ministers meet later this week, to support the proposal to extend for another year, to 2027, the European temporary protection directive for people fleeing the war in Ukraine. That has implications for Ireland and yet there has been no discussion on that point in the Oireachtas. We have been of the view that continually extending temporary measures is not a sustainable solution and is problematic for everyone. We have said that the Irish Government should not support moves to extend the temporary protection directive to 2027. That will be five years after the war started, which cannot be described as temporary. We need a planned end to the temporary directives. We need the Government to bring forward a roadmap for the end of the directive that gives Ukrainians certainty about their future in Ireland or what supports for returning home are available for those who want to do so. Several years after the outbreak of a war when an emergency approach was taken with the support of the Members of this House across the board, the temporary short-term approach must conclude. There should be a return to the application of ordinary permanent migration rules as they apply to refugees and asylum seekers from other states. If beneficiaries of temporary protection are from a part of Ukraine that is not suffering from the war and want to return home, we should be assisting them to do so. We must find a permanent mechanism to deal with people from all other parts of Ukraine who have come here and been welcomed by the Irish people either through our international protection system or our work permit system to ensure a resolution.

I am calling on the Minister to start acting in Ireland's interests and not to go along an EU trajectory for the sake of it or to be able to say we are doing something. Above all, I am asking the Government to stand up for Irish sovereignty. I am calling on the Government not to opt into this European Council decision authorising the opening of negotiations on an agreement between the EU and Kazakhstan under Article 3. Rather, we should wait until we have the full detail of what has been negotiated. I propose that Ireland should be a part of those conversations at all levels. Then we can make a decision with full knowledge. If it is in the best interests of the Irish people, the Members of the House will be able to discuss the issue with full knowledge, which we do not have currently.

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

What we are being asked to vote on here is the Government asking us to trust it. That is what the entire motion comes down to. We are making statements today on the idea of trust. The Minister is asking us to sign off on a behind-closed-doors negotiation without access to the annexes, without public scrutiny and without a clear understanding of the implications. We are effectively being asked by the Government to trust it. I do not. From conversations I have had over the past week or week and a half, I can say that there are people the length and breadth of the country who do not trust the Government when it comes to immigration and international protection, and certainly not when it comes to how the Government is treating vulnerable people in that system.

Let me be absolutely clear. The proposal to enter negotiations with Kazakhstan is not about solving a problem but is about performance and optics. Since 2019, just 12 people from Kazakhstan have applied for international protection in Ireland and only one deportation order has issued in that time, yet we are being asked to green light a formal process to make deportations faster and easier. It is a process with real consequences for real people. It is a process we have not even been allowed to see in full at this point. We are told that this is about future-proofing. If this is the future we are preparing for, one where international protection is gutted, asylum seekers are scapegoated and vulnerable children in our school system are deported for public relations purposes, I do not want any part of it.

Last week, we all read reports of children being deported in the middle of the school year. They were pulled from the only homes they have known in hotels that are unsuited to that name. They had no proper warning or integration supports. From testimony I have heard from their school principals, friends and allies, the approach simply demonstrated no compassion. It was not just cruel but also seemed calculated. It was timed perfectly with ramped-up media spin about Ireland getting tough. This was not policy but theatre. It was a cost that was borne by children. What basis has a Minister to be sending out tweets announcing the deportation of 55 people? Who is the audience on Twitter for that? Let us just say that the dogs on the street could hear that particular whistle.

We have seen this kind of posturing previously. There have been press releases on deportation flights, as though they are something to celebrate. The Minister went on "Morning Ireland" to announce the measure as if he were a general coming back from war. There have been radio interviews with Ministers that link immigration with social problems in thinly veiled dog whistles. It is a strategy of division that shifts blame away from the Government's failures and onto people who came here to seek refuge, as is their legal right. This Government has broken the very system it now claims to be future-proofing. It commissioned the Catherine Day report and ignored its findings. The report was crystal clear that the reception system in Ireland is unfit for purpose. People were left in limbo for years and children grew up in institutional settings. Basic needs went unmet and supports were sporadic and inconsistent. The report painted a damning picture of a system built on delay, denial and dysfunction. It was updated to recognise the fact that increased pressure has been placed on the system by the conflicts and famines and other events that lead people to seek sanctuary. The updated report was also ignored. Who exactly was it that built that system? It was Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. There are those of us who for the past 20-odd years have been protesting the cruel conditions of direct provision. The same parties now claim they want to streamline international protection. They want us to believe they will honour human rights in negotiations with countries such as Kazakhstan, which, let us be clear, has a documented record of repression.

I say to the parties on the left and the Government parties that it should not be hard for us to say that children who are in the school system should not be deported three weeks before they are supposed to graduate primary school. It should not be hard for us to say that is wrong. Other countries have different systems through which this is done. Some systems are better and fairer. Last week's events were a poor example of who we are as a republic and how we treat children. Let us be clear that the rights of children are recognised in legal texts. Those standards were not met. When we talk about a rules-based system, we must ensure that we mirror those rules when we are enforcing the standards that we, as a State, are not meeting.

In Kazakhstan, there is no legal protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Domestic violence is not a stand-alone criminal offence. Independent journalism is muzzled. The Internet is censored. Critics are arrested under vague anti-extremism laws. Yet the Government wants us to believe that asylum seekers returning to Kazakhstan will be treated fairly, even when the very criteria used to assess asylum claims are being eroded across the EU.

The Minister says that if someone has a genuine case, he or she will be granted protection. However, we know better. We know that the definition of "genuine" is being narrowed all across Europe. Even people with legitimate fears are now being rejected because they do not fit neatly into bureaucratic boxes. More importantly, they do not fit neatly into the rhythm of the day and the audience to whom a centre-right Government is trying to appeal. It is when systems become hostile, political narratives turn sour and countries start competing over who can be toughest on migrants that the quiet tragedies happen. People get sent back and disappear. Over the past week and a half, I have heard many stories of people who are in the international protection accommodation services, IPAS, system being put into the prison system. That is outlandish. We are talking about the need to increase capacity in our prison system at the same time that IPAS residents are being put into prison without any information as to how long their stay will be.

That is genuinely terrifying. Surely, we must be better than that. I can give the Minister of State the names of individuals, if he likes. I talked to one individual today who was taken into prison accommodation, deported and, at this moment in time, does not know where his children, who are still here, or their mother are. What is happening is designed to be terrifying. That is the purpose of the tweets, the press releases and the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, going on the radio to say we have to get the message out there. Who is the message going to exactly?

Let us not pretend that this is harmless, that it is just a procedural step and that we are only opening talks. When you vote to begin a negotiation, you are endorsing its purpose. You are validating its logic and, in this case, the logic is flawed. The rationale is empty. The consequences are real. This Government has shown time and again that it is willing to trade in human dignity for political headlines. Just take a look at how we now recategorise our homeless figures, to see an example of that. That is what the deportation of children showed. That is what the broken reception system shows and what this vote shows.

We should not be outsourcing decisions about people’s safety to the European Commission without knowing what it plans to do in our name. We should not be engaging with repressive regimes in secret and we should not be treating people as if they are a problem to be managed rather than human beings deserving of rights, fairness and due process, above all else. This is not about migration management. It is not about future-proofing. It is very clearly about optics. It is about this endeavour to look tough and creating another stick to beat people with, even though only 12 people from Kazakhstan have come here since 2019. The purpose of this motion is to once again say, "Look at us. We are tough". What is actually tough is going into communities, having difficult conversations, hearing the fears and being able to explain that Ireland is not full. There are genuine communities that are running on empty. They have been asked to step up in the absence of the Government, but that is not the tough talk we are having. The tough talk is about the optics.

The Social Democrats will not support the motion because we have seen what this Government does when no one is looking. I have watched it spin cruelty into policy and I refuse to play a part in something that I know will be used, ultimately, to hurt those who have the least. I hope this House and parties across the left will have the courage to say the same.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As Deputy Gannon outlined, the Social Democrats will not be supporting the motion. I will outline three clear reasons that is the case. First, it is demonstrative of virtue signalling and performative cruelty, which has not crept into our system but has been recently exposed as being in our system. Second, it is a solution without a problem. I will outline some of the problems we could be directing our energies at in the Dáil and elsewhere within the international protection system. Finally, very serious human rights concern exist within this suggested piece of work.

Last week, and in recent months, we have seen the Minister for Justice tweeting gleefully about deportation flights, which do not represent value for money for the State. They are simply a very expensive PR exercise for the Minister and this Government to seem tough on immigration. All of this is happening when our system for processing international protection, immigration, naturalisation and asylum claims is crumbling and always has been. The focus and priority of our system should be on a fair, kind and quick process of seeking asylum, applying for visas and dealing with immigration in this country. We have seen an overwhelming focus on how to echo the cries of "Get them out". We have heard the far right in this country in our laws and policies, all while immigrants fear for their safety and face increasing racism and discrimination. These people are the backbone of our communities, public services and tax base. It is so frustrating to see public policy from this Government treat them as pests to be controlled and expelled.

As I mentioned, this is a solution without a problem. Twelve people from Kazakhstan have come to Ireland since 2019. There are no direct flights to or from Kazakhstan and Ireland. What is the sense in investing our time and energy, and the work of many people in the Department, on negotiations for a deal that has virtually no effect on our country? The only conclusion my colleagues and I can draw is that we are keen to sign on to anything that makes this Government look tough on immigration. That is performative, not practical. When we have significant priorities both here and at EU level that are falling by the wayside, I cannot see how we can justify spending time and energy on negotiations when other EU states can simply turn around and ask, "Why should we listen to you? You do not have immigration from Kazakhstan".

I will outline some of the things we should be looking at within our international system. How about gender-specific accommodation for those who are here seeking international protection who are the victims of sexual violence? What about the vulnerability assessments and the opt-out system introduced a number of years ago, which has issues around accessibility and language capabilities and simply does not meet the requirements we have signed up to under international law? What about the interpreting services and legal services? Where is the analysis and assessment of how the increasing speed of the process is not impacting on efficiency - that is one question - but on the rights of people to claim asylum in this country? What about the thousands of people who we are not offering accommodation to, and the many people who are languishing in direct provision and staying in accommodation much longer than they should in conditions that provide no family privacy, and no ability or means to even cook their own food or practise their culture or religion? What about those issues? Why are we focusing our energy on this?

I will speak to the human rights concerns I have in respect of this motion. I cannot see how any agreement with a country that imprisons political opposition, tortures prisoners and where freedom of speech and assembly are severely restricted can have the human rights guarantees we need. You do not have to be a bleeding heart liberal to think that deporting people to a country where their fundamental freedoms and rights are denied is wrong. We have heard from the Minister of State that human rights protections will be paramount for the European Commission in these negotiations, but this is the same Commission that is pushing back against eradicating slavery from our supply chains, that is trying to use cohesion funding for arms manufacturers and is failing to respond to the genocide in Gaza. While this Government may argue that the EU will be able to push for a better approach, its track record at EU level on taking the lead on human rights is poor. These are the reasons I will not be supporting this motion.

Colm Brophy (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I reiterate what I said in my opening remarks that the essential priority for the Government in our immigration laws is that they are robust and enforced. People are entitled to have confidence in our immigration system and there obviously must be consequences for individuals who refuse to leave the State when they are ordered to do so.

Returns and readmission are fundamental pillars of the comprehensive and credible EU policy on migration. The European Council has consistently emphasised the need for a unified, comprehensive and effective policy. Readmission agreements play a very important role in that fight against irregular migration. The purpose of the Council's decision is to open negotiations on a readmission agreement with Kazakhstan that contains clear and unambiguous legally binding obligations that are necessary for two purposes. The first is to ensure rapid and effective procedures for the identification and return of persons, including nationals of EU member states and Kazakhstan, third-country nationals and stateless persons, illegally entering or remaining on the party's territory. The second is to facilitate the transit of persons to be returned to another third country in a spirit of co-operation.

By opting in at this stage, Ireland will be able to engage fully in the Council decision and negotiating mandate. That is a crucially important part of this. It is the bit that Deputies, in some of their contributions, are choosing to ignore or do not seem to take on board; opting in would clearly demonstrate support for our EU partners and their citizens' interests. Choosing to take part at this stage would also align with Ireland's commitment to opting in, wherever possible, to EU measures in the area of freedom, security and justice under Title V. That is a very important part.

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

Where possible.

Colm Brophy (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are actually engaging in an initial stage which, as the Deputy fully knows, will come back afterwards to the House for full discussion, if we choose to opt in at the end.

While the numbers coming to Ireland from Kazakhstan are low, and I accept the point made about applications for international protection in 2022 and the five applications in 2024, opting into the Council's decision to open negotiations on readmission with Kazakhstan would further demonstrate Ireland's commitment, which is important, to a common EU-wide solution to migration that is already evidenced by our opting in to the EU asylum and migration pact. I make that point in respect of Deputy Carthy's comment about outsourcing to the EU. I know his party does not really like the EU, regardless of what lines it throws out from time to time, but we are the EU. Ireland is part of the European Union.

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

Not all of it. Not all of Ireland. That is the problem.

Colm Brophy (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are not outsourcing to the EU. We are part of the European Union. It is important that we acknowledge that and a common approach is the best, which is why we have opted in to the European asylum and migration pact.

It is also worth noting, in light what seems to be a presumption that we are automatically bound by any agreement resulting from negotiations, that the aim is simply to give the Commission a mandate to negotiate with Kazakhstan on a readmission agreement. At that point, once an agreement is finalised, Ireland will then seek to opt in to that agreement. It is important that Ireland opt in at this initial stage because, contrary to what the Social Democrats might like, it shows solidarity with our EU partners and at the same time ensures that Ireland's interests, including having an efficient and streamlined EU return process, are fully reflected in the negotiating mandate. A well-functioning return system fully and seamlessly integrated with the new common European asylum system is essential, and we have often heard that return is the missing link from achievement represented by the agreement on the overall European asylum pact reform.

With regard to the pact reform, some of the measures Deputies have outlined in their contributions looking to have a more streamlined approach and a faster system. Contrary to the remark made earlier, a faster system would actually be fairer to everybody, including people going through the process. We recognise the need for that change, which is why we are so determined to make sure that we transpose the migration pact into Irish legislation to enable that faster and more streamlined process to take place. The readmission agreement would reaffirm that it would be applied in such a way as to ensure the protection of human rights. There is a constant refrain that we seem to be ignoring this; that is not the case.

I cannot understand the position the Social Democrats seem to be taking on this and their opposition to it. At one point they said, though they do not seem to say it any more in their contributions, that they were in favour of deportations and that they accept it as part of a process. Deputy Gannon's colleague sitting behind him told me on radio that she accepted the fact that deportations were an essential part of the process.

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

We all do.

Colm Brophy (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

All the Government has done with regard to deportation flights is to see the process through, and it is important to recognise that.

Sinéad Gibney (Dublin Rathdown, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is the manner of communication around it.

Colm Brophy (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no desire by the Government to initially move to things like deportation flights. They are an end part of a process where we actually believe people have been given an opportunity to voluntarily return at the start, and for people to engage in leaving in other ways.

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

Children cannot take that decision themselves.

Colm Brophy (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a complete misrepresentation of the Government's position to say there is somehow any glee or joy in-----

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

We did not say that.

Colm Brophy (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----communicating on deportation flights, but they are part of it.

What we are doing here, as I said, is a process of engagement. I would ask, therefore, that the House would support this exercise for Ireland's opt-in in respect of this measure. I thank the Deputies for their consideration on this important matter.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division will be deferred until the voting block this evening.

We will suspend for a few minutes while we wait for the Minister, Deputy James Lawless.