Aisling Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before I call on the Minister to open the debate, I remind Members that three separate motions are being debated in this slot, namely the motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as regards the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level, the motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as regards the application of the "safe third country" concept, and the motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann for a European Council recommendation on a co-ordinated approach to the transition out of temporary protection for displaced persons from Ukraine. The motions will be moved separately but will be debated together and decided by separate questions. I invite the Minister, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan, to move the first motion and open the debate. The opening speaking slot is 35 minutes.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
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: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as regards the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 16th May, 2025.

For the convenience of colleagues who may not be here but who may be watching the proceedings on a screen, I will probably not take the full 35 minutes.

The Chair will be aware that the central priority of the Government is to have an immigration system in the country that is robust and in which the people can have confidence. Ireland is committed to supporting and advancing the development of a common European system of asylum to provide a consistent, fair and efficient asylum procedure in ordinary times and also in times of crisis, which we certainly saw last year when 18,500 people came to Ireland seeking asylum. For this reason, I ask that the House approve the three motions before it this afternoon, which seek permission to allow Ireland to opt into the three proposals in the field of international and temporary protection.

The Chair will also be aware that the legal basis on which we seek to opt into these proposals is pursuant to Article 3 of Protocol 21. Ireland has an option when it comes to opting in. It can opt in pursuant to Article 3 or pursuant to Article 4. With respect to the three motions before the House today, I seek the permission of Dáil Eireann to permit Ireland to opt in pursuant to Article 3, which gives us an opportunity to get involved in the negotiation of the legislative instrument before it is finalised.

In 2024, Ireland opted in, under Article 4 of Protocol 21, to seven non-Schengen measures of what was referred to as the migration pact, including the asylum procedures regulation, APR. On 29 April 2025, I brought before the Government a memorandum seeking Government approval for the drafting of a new international protection Bill to replace the current one, which has been in place for ten years. The purpose of the new Bill is to reform the system of asylum applications in Ireland and ensure we are transposing into Irish law the requirements of our membership and the agreement to take on board the content of the migration pact.

On 16 April 2025, the European Commission published a proposal for a regulation amending the APR as regards the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level. This relates to the first of the three motions. The APR provides, for the first time in EU law, for the possibility and conditions to designate safe countries of origin at Union level. The possibility for member states to designate countries as safe countries of origin at national level is retained. This, in particular, is something I wanted to emphasise. Members will be aware that under section 72 of the International Protection Act 2015, Ireland is entitled to designate countries as safe countries of origin for the purpose of the asylum application process. That statutory power will remain when the new Bill is enacted next year. What we are seeking to do here is recognise that parallel to that will be an EU system whereby the EU can designate countries as safe.

The current proposal of the EU is to designate all EU candidate countries as safe. These countries are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Türkiye and Ukraine. It is also proposed at EU level to designate the following non-candidate countries as safe: Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco and Tunisia.

That would continue alongside the national power that Ireland and all other member states would retain to designate their own list of safe countries.

As I have stated, under section 72 of the 2015 Act, I can make an order designating a country as a safe country of origin. To date in Ireland, 15 countries have been designated by us as safe countries of origin under section 72, namely, Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Egypt, Georgia, India, Kosovo, Malawi, Montenegro, Morocco, North Macedonia, Serbia and South Africa. It must however be noted that the application of section 72 will not be affected by the proposed amendment to the asylum procedures regulation I am seeking permission to opt in to here.

Comparing the list of countries that Ireland has designated as safe under section 72 with the proposal for the EU-wide list of countries, we see there is considerable overlap. The only real difference is that on the EU list, there are three further countries, namely, Turkey, Tunisia and Colombia, which three countries have not yet been designated by Ireland as safe countries of origin. The agreement of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level would contribute to the objective of enhancing co-operation on return and readmission as a part of the comprehensive approach to migration set out in the proposed new international protection Bill and in the other EU legislative proposals contained within the pact. That is the first motion, seeking the approval of Dáil Éireann for permission for us to opt in pursuant to Article 3 of Protocol 21 to the EU-wide list of safe countries of origin.

The second proposal and second motion concerns another matter which is referred to as "safe third countries". Safe third countries are different from safe countries of origin. Safe countries of origin are the place from where the applicant emanates. Safe third countries are places to which an applicant from another country may go or may be returned to. On 20 May 2025, the Commission published a proposal for a regulation amending the asylum procedure regulation as regards the application of the safe third country concept. This allows member states to determine an international protection application is inadmissible when the applicant could receive effective protection in a safe third country, considered safe for the applicant. Currently, by virtue of section 72A of the 2015 Act, I can designate by order a country as a safe third country. Only one country to date has been designated under the 2015 Act as a safe third country, namely, the UK including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

The asylum procedure regulation will govern the safe third country concept at an EU level when measures come into effect in June 2026 with the enactment of the international protection Bill. Under the proposed amendments, the connection criterion will remain, but there will be two further alternatives. One is that the concept can be applied based on transit through a safe third country before reaching the EU. The other is on the basis of an arrangement or agreement with a safe third country ensuring the examination of requests for effective protection in that country.

As the EU intensifies efforts to establish an effective and safe migration policy, it is important that Ireland is strategically aligned with fellow member states on a multilateral basis to benefit from opportunities and address challenges. We have seen what happened when the United Kingdom decided to respond to illegal migration of its own accord by leaving the European Union. Things have got considerably worse for that country in terms of illegal migration. It is important and advisable that a country such as Ireland should seek to align ourselves and harmonise our approach with other EU countries. Ireland’s strategic role in relation to migration decisions will be strengthened through its participation in migration measures at EU level. A decision to opt in to these proposals would demonstrate Ireland's commitment to a common EU-wide solution to migration, as evidenced by our opting in to the series of EU legislative proposals that I outlined earlier. Opting in to this safe third country proposal under Article 3 of Protocol 21 would allow Ireland to influence the proposals during the legislative process, giving potential to mitigate any aspects of the proposals that may cause difficulties for Ireland.

At this stage I should pause and say that, as Members of the House will be aware, when it comes to Protocol 21 there are two options available to Ireland. We can opt in under Article 3, as I am proposing here in respect of the safe third countries and safe country of origin measures. We also have the power to opt in under Article 4. The difference between opting in under Article 3 and Article 4 is that under the former, we participate in negotiations and play a significant part in trying to get agreement for the outcome and conclusion of the legislative proposal. When it comes to Article 4, however, we see the finished proposal and then decide ourselves whether we wish to opt in to it. There are advantages and disadvantages in respect of both. It is the case that historically and recently, Ireland has availed of Article 4 more than Article 3.

Before I go on to deal with the other opt-in I am seeking the permission of Dáil Éireann to carry through, I refer to the return regulation, an issue that had originally been listed as a legislative proposal which I wished to get the permission of Dáil Éireann to opt in to under Article 3. On 11 March 2025, the European Commission published a proposal for a regulation establishing a common system for the return of third country nationals staying illegally in the European Union. Opting in to this proposal would demonstrate Ireland's commitment to a common EU-wide solution to migration which is already evidenced by our opting in to those other measures which make up the pact. The returns proposal has been constructed by the Commission as a hybrid measure with both a Schengen and non-Schengen legal basis to facilitate the participation of Ireland and Schengen member states and Schengen associated countries. The particular manner of Ireland’s participation is still under discussion with EU counterparts given the complexity of the hybrid legal basis issue. The issue will be formally discussed by all member states in the relevant working group next Monday. I want to reflect on the outcome of that discussion, and if the emerging consensus from that discussion among member states is that it would be preferable and more beneficial for Ireland to seek an opt-in under Article 4, instead of Article 3, I will then ask officials to pursue that path. I will seek the approval of the Houses regarding same in due course.

In respect of the returns proposal, what I am stating is that I want first to have engagement with the European Union to see what the consequences would be of opting in under Article 3, and what the benefits or consequences would be of opting in pursuant to Article 4. I will be in a much better position to make a determination on that after Monday. If the advice I receive is that an opt-in pursuant to Article 4 is more favourable to Ireland and is preferable, I will come back to this House to seek permission to opt in, probably next year or late this year.

I will now deal with the third proposal that is on the agenda for today, which concerns temporary protection. I am also seeking to get the permission of Dáil Éireann to permit Ireland to opt in to this Council recommendation on a co-ordinated approach. Colleagues are aware that on 4 June 2025, the Commission published a proposal for a Council recommendation on a co-ordinated approach to the transition out of temporary protection for displaced persons from Ukraine. Given the inherent temporary nature of the temporary protection directive, it is accepted that even if the war in Ukraine remains protracted, temporary protection must come to an end.

The Commission has published a proposal for a Council recommendation on a co-ordinated approach to the transition out of temporary protection for displaced persons from Ukraine. The four sets of measures promote the transition into other legal statuses before the end of temporary protection, ensure smooth and sustainable reintegration in Ukraine, ensure the provision of information to displaced persons and enhance co-ordination, monitoring and exchange of information among member states and Ukrainian authorities to monitor and support reintegration efforts. The proposed Council recommendation will not be binding in nature; rather, it is an important tool to support a co-ordinated EU-wide exit from temporary protection. Providing a roadmap for an orderly exit from temporary protection, this recommendation is essential to meeting one of the key objectives of activating the temporary protection directive, which is to protect the member states international protection system, while acknowledging that many persons enjoying temporary protection have been in the Union for several years.

The third proposal before the House today seeks to get the permission of Dáil Éireann to permit us to opt-in to those proposals in respect of temporary protection. One thing I am certain of when it comes to temporary protection that was granted in respect of persons fleeing Ukraine is that there must be a co-ordinated response by the European Union to how that temporary protection should come to an end. Everyone recognises because of its name that temporary protection cannot go on forever. It must come to an end. However, it would be extremely dangerous if Ireland were to adopt a unilateral approach and to say we should just bring temporary protection to an end for ourselves. The effect of that would be the 90,000 people from Ukraine who are in Ireland at present would all apply for international protection. We have managed to get the numbers of people seeking international protection down in Ireland significantly from where they were last year. For the first six months of this year, there have been approximately 6,000 applicants. In total, last year there were 18,500 applications. We are on target to have a lesser number than was the case in 2024 and, indeed, in 2023 and 2022. What we do not want to do is to completely disrupt our system of international protection, which is working faster at present, by telling the 80,000 or 90,000 Ukrainian people who have temporary protection they no longer have it and they would then have to apply for international protection. That is the reason it is appropriate to have a harmonised and co-ordinated response by the European Union to how temporary protection should end.

We do not want to see a situation where people from Ukraine in different EU countries are looking around saying let us head to Ireland or Czechia as there are better services there, or there is more preferential treatment in one country over another. We want to ensure that there is a harmonised response across the Union to how this process is terminated.

It is important for Ireland to opt-in to these three proposals to ensure Ireland's immigration system is robust, but also it is effective and efficient. Opting-in will underline Ireland's commitment to EU values and support for the EU's migration system. It would demonstrate Ireland's continued solidarity with our EU partners. It would also show that we have a harmonised agreed approach in response to the big challenge of asylum applications in respect of Europe in the 21st century.

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

We are being asked to debate three distinct motions as part of one debate to facilitate an early opt-in to proposed EU regulations. Until yesterday afternoon, we were due to be dealing with four motions. The withdrawal of the motion on the returns regulation reinforces everything Sinn Féin has been saying, and which I will address here, about why we should not opt-in to these regulations under Article 3 of Protocol 21. It is astounding and concerning that the Government was planning to push through an Article 3 opt-in where it has now been revealed that Ireland’s manner of participation is still under discussion with EU counterparts. In explaining the late withdrawal of this motion, the Government has cited the “complexity of the hybrid legal basis” of the regulation, which has been constructed by the Commission as a hybrid measure with Ireland, Schengen states and Schengen associated states. The fact the Government had to pull this motion with 24 hours' notice should be a wake-up call for anyone who thinks it makes sense to hand the Government a blank check to sign up to regulations by rushing through opt-ins under Article 3 of Protocol 21 when we have the option to do so later with more information under Article 4.

Sinn Féin has always said Ireland’s unique position as an EU state, outside of Schengen and part of the common travel area with Britain raises specific challenges and that our approach to any proposed regulation has to be carefully considered. Article 4 of Protocol 21 gives us the option to opt-in when we know exactly how such a regulation would operate in Ireland’s unique circumstances. The motions, which remain on the clár, and we are considering today deal with important matters, including planning for the end of temporary protection, the designation of safe countries and safe third countries. These are matters Sinn Féin believes should be dealt with by an Irish Government based on what is best for the country rather than through an EU-wide approach that will be heavily influenced by the needs of the larger EU states, which are also part of the Schengen area.

The Government keeps repeating when bringing forward such motions Ireland is aiming to demonstrate our commitment to an EU-wide approach to migration. Who exactly are we trying to impress? The primary objective of an Irish Government should be to do what is in Ireland’s best interests. Where it is in Ireland's best interests to opt-in, this is best done under Article 4 of Protocol 21 when we can examine in these Houses the final contents of the regulation and are in a position as an Oireachtas to satisfy ourselves that this is the case.

The majority of the problems facing Ireland’s international protection system do not require EU legislation or regulations. They require a Government that ensures that international protection applications are processed quickly, decisions enforced to ensure that those who are not entitled to remain leave swiftly and that those who are entitled to remain are supported to integrate into our communities. In the first instance, migration policies should be decided at a state level when possible by governments which are answerable to their electorates. Sinn Féin believes that Ireland’s sovereignty on migration issues should only be impinged when it is necessary to act collaboratively. We accept there are occasions, instances and policy areas where that is the case. There is a need for co-ordination, for example, in the EU with returns and information sharing. However, in the first instance, it is the Irish Government’s responsibility to ensure that our migration system here in Ireland works better, faster and more efficiently while being human-rights compliant.

I wish to address the major concerns of sovereignty with respect to how the Government is approaching opt-ins to regulation under Protocol 21. This something that has been highlighted by the Government's decision to pull the returns regulation. There is a growing trend of the Government seeking to opt-in to EU measures in the areas of freedom, security and justice where Ireland enjoys the right to opt-out. Crucially, once we opt-in, we cannot opt out.

Protocol 21 attached to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU, came into effect in its current form with the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009. It was a key selling point of the Government of the day in respect of the second Lisbon treaty. The protocol provides Ireland with the right to opt-out and the choice to opt-in to legislation adopted to govern the areas of freedom, security and justice on a case-by-case basis. Under Article 3 of Protocol 21, Ireland can opt-in either within three months after the proposal has been presented to the Council, as is being proposed in relation to these motions, or under Article 4, at any time after a proposal’s adoption. Under Article 3, we get to participate in negotiations and vote on the measure. That is the Minister's apparent selling point. However, he did not say we are bound by the outcome that will be decided by qualified majority vote. Ireland has no veto and could be bound by the resulting measure even if its contrary to our interests.

For Sinn Féin, the issue of sovereignty is paramount in considering these motions. A constant drip drip of handing over that sovereignty to the EU undermines democracy and our ability as a country to act in the best interests of the people. Unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary, Ireland should be making our own decisions on the issues for consideration in these motions. These are: designation of safe countries of origin; designation of safe third countries; and the transition out of temporary protection. Under Article 4 of Protocol 21, Ireland has the option to opt-in to these regulations at a later stage. This would allow us to do it at a time when we have absolute clarity on whether they are in our best interests.

Taking three significant proposed regulations as part of one debate scheduled for three and half hours, although it will probably less because a pile of Government speaking slots will not be taken, does not show any commitment to upholding sovereignty and democracy or to ensuring proper scrutiny.

The first is a proposal is a regulation amending the regulation regarding the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level. Member states will be allowed to designate additional safe countries outside of the EU common list. Sinn Féin has supported the concept of safe country of origin, including the use of accelerated procedures for those from these states as part of the efficient management of our migration system. As Irish law currently provides for this, there is no argument to have this done at EU-level. In fact, it makes a lot more sense for this to be done by an Irish Government based on what is happening here with migration flows which may be considerably different from time to time to the experience across the rest of European Union.

The problem we have at the moment, which is down to a Government failure to end the chaos in our international protection system, is that even in the case of those from states subjected to accelerated procedures it is still taking far too long to process applications, particularly when an appeal is involved, which is virtually all cases. At the beginning of this year, the average processing time for a person from a country subjected to accelerated procedures was 15 months once the person appeals the decision.

While there has been a notable increase in IPAT staff and budgeting, we still face significant problems. It was revealed to me in a reply to a parliamentary question this week that there are 25 vacancies in IPAT. That is a vacancy rate of over 20% when you look at the overall staff cohort.

The Government is failing also when it comes to returns. It does not need to rely on the EU in order to do better in terms of monitoring, tracking and enforcing returns. This is undoubtedly complicated by the fact that Ireland is part of the common travel area and does not track exit from and entry into the State.

I have raised issues consistently with the Minister as to how these decisions are enforced and tracked where people do not have a right to remain in the State. Again, there is a huge gap at the moment.

The problem, of course, is that for years the Government did nothing. Now we see some deportation flights but they impact a tiny fraction of those with deportation orders, and I think there is a sense that they are more of an elaborate, expensive PR exercise than anything else to give the impression that the Government is dealing with the issue.

The second proposed regulation deals with the safe third country concept. That concept has existed in Irish law since 2020, when it was inserted into the International Protection Act 2015 by way of the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (Consequential Provisions) Act. It was further amended by way of the Courts, Civil Law, Criminal Law and Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2024 as a result of a legal challenge.

Britain is currently the only country that has been designated as a safe third country under Irish law, but the Irish Government at any time can designate others. In April, the Minister indicated to me in a reply to a parliamentary question that following the redesignation of Britain as a safe third country, following legislative changes, arrangements for re-operationalising the reciprocal returns agreements on foot of the new designation were being put in place in consultation with Britain. It would be useful if at some point the Minister or one of his colleagues could update the Dáil on whether this has now happened and, if so, how many returns have actually been made since they were re-operationalised.

Currently, applicable EU and Irish law requires a connection between the applicant and the safe third country concerned on the basis of which it would be reasonable for the person to be returned to that country. The proposed amending regulation provides that a connection between the applicant and the safe third county would no longer be mandatory, that transit through a safe third country before reaching the EU could be considered as a sufficient link, and that the safe third country concept can be applied if there is an agreement or an arrangement with a safe third country ensuring the examination of requests for effective protection in that country. Irish law, of course, could just be changed to reflect some of these changes - if this House were to decide that is what is required - where they make sense and are in line with Irish interests and values. The option as regards this regulation is that we could opt in at a later stage under Article 4 when we know precisely what it is we are voting on. We should not opt in at this stage when we do not know exactly what will be contained in the final regulation.

Finally, as regards the proposal for a Council recommendation on a co-ordinated approach to the transition out of temporary protection, I want to put on the record Sinn Féin's view that the temporary protection directive should not have been extended until 2027. The Government supported this extension without any consultation with the Oireachtas despite the financial and the public policy implications of the move. The extension of the temporary protection directive to March 2027, five years after the war started, was not a sustainable solution and is incredibly problematic. It is very interesting to read the speech the Minister has put on the record of this House. He said:

Given the inherent temporary nature of the temporary protection directive, it is accepted that even if the war in Ukraine remains protracted, temporary protection must come to an end.

I was called heartless last week for saying the exact same thing. It is a matter of common sense that temporary measures should be temporary. Sinn Féin argued that, rather than extending the temporary protection directive, what we needed to see was a planned end to the directive that gives Ukrainians certainty about their future in Ireland and about what supports for those who wish to return home would be put in place.

The way in which the temporary protection directive has operated in this State has been problematic in many aspects. If we do not acknowledge that, we have a problem. Not only did it create two classes of refugees; measures such as the accommodation recognition payment were deeply unfair and caused huge divisions within communities. The scheme created significant pressure within the rental system. It added to the driving up of rents in many counties as those who were from Ukraine under the protection directive were offered non-means-tested supports for housing that were not available to anybody else from anywhere else in the world, including Ireland, who were in equal need of housing assistance and in some cases might have had a lower income and lower means.

What we have said for a long time is that the Irish Government should have been planning long before now for how we move beyond temporary protection. Government Ministers, of course, were quick to criticise Sinn Féin for saying that an end to temporary protection needed to be planned for, but that is now what the EU is belatedly proposing and the Government signs up in an instant. What we need to see, though, is the Irish Government planning for an end to temporary protection based on Ireland's circumstances, not simply because the EU has decided that is now what we should do.

As it stands, we simply have no idea whether the Council recommendation in relation to a co-ordinated approach out of the temporary protection directive will be appropriate to the specific circumstances and challenges we face in this State. We should not be signing up under Article 3 of Protocol 21. Rather, the Irish Government should start now in drawing up our plans for what we require for the ending of the temporary protection directive, taking into account the needs of Ukrainians in Ireland who came here under the scheme and wider Irish interests.

I again call on the Minister to reconsider his approach to all three motions. We should not be opting in under Article 3. Unlike other EU states, we have the advantage of being able to opt in at a later stage under Article 4 and only if it is in Ireland's best interests to do so. That right was won by the Irish people when, by virtue of their constitutional right to make these decisions in referendums, they rejected EU regulations simply and quite largely because of the precise fear that Irish governments would make decisions at an EU level for which there would be no or limited democratic oversight here.

Ireland needs a managed migration system that has the confidence of the Irish people. We do not have that at present. International protection applications still take far too long to process. The IPAS system has become a cash cow for a golden circle who have made absolute fortunes from taxpayers' moneys with virtually no transparency or accountability. Communities have lost important facilities and services have become overstretched from this failed approach. We cannot have confidence that the asylum decisions that are being made are being enforced or that those who are not entitled to be in Ireland are actually leaving the country. This State must do whatever is required to have a managed migration system that is human rights-compliant. That might include some of the measures included in these regulations, but those decisions should be made in this sovereign Parliament, by an Irish Government that is accountable to the Irish people, not behind closed doors in Brussels where decisions will be binding not just on the current Government but on future governments, and where those decisions will invariably fail to consider Ireland's unique position as a partitioned island nation with a common travel area with a state outside of the EU framework. That is a recipe for disaster.

The Government's response to the migration challenges we face is to give a blank cheque to the EU to set our policies. The very fact that the Minister withdrew one of the four proposed regulations due to legal concerns should raise a bright red flag to every Member of this Chamber who intends to vote for the other three. Once we sign up we can never opt out, regardless of the final text agreed, even when it is blatantly not in Ireland's interest. The approach the Government is taking is wrong. It is, in fact, dangerous and the Minister is abdicating his responsibility to deliver a managed migration system that is accountable to, and has the confidence of, the Irish people. It is for those reasons that Sinn Féin will vote against these regulations.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is concerning how we got to this stage today where we are dealing with these motions in the manner in which we are dealing with them. Frankly, it is unacceptable that we are dealing with such important motions in this haphazard way. The fact one of the motions had to be withdrawn by the Minister at the last minute just goes to show how shoddily this issue is being dealt with. Why was this proposed to be dealt with here and then 48 hours later it was taken off? The Minister might explain that to the House.

The first of these motions would designate all EU candidate countries as safe countries of origin. This will include Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey and Ukraine. Outside of the EU, it will also designate Bangladesh, Columbia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco and Tunisia as safe countries of origin. I appreciate that Pride month is over now but bearing in mind that the International Protection Act requires protection be given where there is a risk of prosecution on grounds of sexual orientation, is it not relevant to a safe country designation that, for example, in Egypt same-sex activity is punishable by up to 17 years of imprisonment with hard labour, fines and deportation? Is that not relevant?

As regards European Union candidate countries, ILGA-Europe publishes an annual rainbow Europe review of the human rights situation in every European country. According to its recent review, Turkey comes third with a score of 5%, ahead of only Russia and Azerbaijan, etc. and Georgia is sixth last on 12%. I encourage the Minister to look at those statistics.

The second proposal would change the rules around safe third countries. This concept allows member states to decide that an application is inadmissible if the applicant cannot be returned to the country of origin but could receive effective protection in a third country that is considered safe for the applicant. Currently, the law requires there be some reasonable connection between the applicant and the third country concerned. You could not reasonably deport an Indian national to Kosovo just because they would be safe there. Is that reasonable? The EU wants to change this rule by proposing an amendment which provides that a connection between the applicant and the safe third country will no be longer mandatory. Transit through a safe third country before reaching the EU could be considered a sufficient link. The safe third country concept could be applied under an agreement or arrangement with a safe third country to ensure the examination of requests for effective protection in that country. This rings familiar in the context of the arrangement the UK had with Rwanda. It is the same thing.

The third proposal would broaden the category of countries to which we could return a failed IPA applicant to include not just the country of origin but also countries of former habitual residence; first countries of asylum; third countries where the individual has the right to reside on an interim basis; and third countries where there is a bilateral or EU-level agreement in place.

Finally, the last proposal states it is accepted that if the war in Ukraine continues in a protracted fashion, the temporary protection directive as we all know it must eventually end. A non-binding Council recommendation is proposed as an important tool to support and co-ordinate an EU-wide exit from temporary protection. To be honest with you, this strikes me as a form of EU nimbyism.

The withdrawal of the other motion, which I referred to earlier, is frankly disgraceful. The slipshod practice of the Department regarding these issues is something I had hoped would discontinue. We as legislators, on behalf of the people, need to deal with these serious issues in a much more considered way.

By way of background, we need to remind ourselves that Ireland is a sovereign state and that we required an amendment to the Constitution in 1972 in order to join the EEC, as it was then. This was required not just to vote in favour of the European project but because the EEC as a project is not, in a formal sense, compatible with our Constitution. The Constitution - this is important - is written on the basis that all laws come from here - the Oireachtas - and are interpreted by the Irish courts. The executive power belongs to the Government of which the Minister is a part. It is a Constitution that was enacted by and belongs to the people. When we joined the EEC, as it was then, we were required to create an exemption. We had to join up to a system which provides that when EEC treaties require us to apply EU law, the European law - and not Irish law - must be applied by an Irish court, even if it conflicts with Irish law or the very same Constitution. The Minister knows this. I do not necessarily have a problem with that; it is the basis on which the European Union was built. I also have no problem with the certainty that we need to be very vigilant in patrolling the borders between EU competence and our own domestic Irish competence. We have to be extremely vigilant on this.

Originally in 1972, we gave a constitutional override to any EEC measures that are necessitated by the obligations of our membership. As we know, at a later stage the EU developed. With regard to the UK and Ireland, an opt-in or opt-out approach to proposals it had in mind for justice, home affairs and Schengen applied. We again amended our Constitution. We are now enabled to opt in to proposals from Europe on justice and home affairs if, and only if, both Houses of the Oireachtas give their approval. That is what brings us to today. It is important to realise what this approval actually means. It means not only that law arrives in this State that is in some formal sense unconstitutional, given it has not originally been enacted by the Oireachtas, but also that the law, once enacted, cannot later be tested by the courts as to its compatibility with the Constitution on any grounds, including human rights grounds. It will escape constitutional scrutiny as EU law because the two Houses have on a day like today - a Thursday afternoon at the beginning of July in 2025 - opted into a proposal of EU law and opted out of the details of the Irish Constitution.

We need to remind ourselves that the UK was always suspicious of justice initiatives coming from Europe on immigration. As we have a common Border and a common travel area with the UK, we have historically largely went along with the UK's opt-in or opt-out decisions. Now, in light of Brexit, it is not so obvious how we will address the issues we are talking about today, particularly in the field of immigration. It seems we are getting more and more of these proposals from the Department of justice in this way.

As regards these motions coming from the Department, the record seems to show sometimes these were referred to a committee. There is no consistency in this; I have looked it up. They were referred to a committee for prior consideration and then other times like today they were not. The reality is that some of these motions are important. I will go as far as to say they are more important than many of the Bills which come from the Minister's Department. They have a bigger impact and remember, they are absolute; they cannot be challenged.

My point is that these motions deserve and require greater scrutiny. They need hearings, evidence, analysis and discussion, but all of that is bypassed if the Minister decides instead to bring the motion directly into the House without any prior examination in committee. I much prefer and propose that any opt-in motion coming from the Minister's Department should in future automatically 100% stand referred initially to the European affairs committee unless the Dáil orders otherwise.

3 o’clock

For some reason, the Minister may want that provision but it should go before the Committee on European Union Affairs first. I do not believe that what we are doing today is the way the Dáil ought to conduct its business, especially when it is important constitutional business.

We were told at the last minute that one of these motions had been withdrawn and we were down to three. The Minister's explanation is pretty terse and dismissive, and he says no more than that he might “reflect” on the discussion as to whether an opt-in under Article 4 instead of Article 3 of Protocol No. 21 would be preferable. There is no attempt from the Minister to offer even the basic courtesy of identifying the actual protocol to which he is referring. It is a pretty shambolic way of asking the Legislature to pass law. Protocol No. 21 is, in fact, referred to in Article 29 of the Constitution and we had to pass a referendum in order to accept Protocol No. 21.

Both Articles 3 and 4 of the protocol refer to the possibility of this State opting into measures adopted by other member states under Title V of Part 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The only difference between the two articles, insofar as I can see, is that Article 3 is about signing up at an early stage, before the measure has been enacted, while Article 4 is about signing up later, after the matter has been passed. We are entitled to hear a lot more from the Government about this before we can be expected to make a decision. I think the Minister would appreciate that, and that he appreciates where I am going with this narrative.

We have an option. We can examine the proposal and decide to opt in or opt out. If we opt in, we are opting into a system of binding EU law that overrides our domestic law. This is an increasingly important decision that we must make. We cannot continue like this. It will be a disservice to our State, the people who put us in here and the people of the wider country if we continue to deal with all of these issues in the manner in which the Minister has begun to deal with them and the manner in which they were dealt with by the previous Government. This is becoming a real issue. We need to change the manner in which we deal with these motions and the way they are scrutinised. Their impacts are colossal. With respect, I urge the Minister to reflect on what I have said today.

Pádraig O'Sullivan (Cork North-Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Fionntán Ó Súilleabháin (Wicklow-Wexford, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Sinn Féin has been clear that where a person is not entitled to be in Ireland, he or she should be returned safely to his or her country of origin and that deportation orders should be both enforced and tracked. We need to have powers to immediately return those who are found not to be entitled to be here.

I am looking up behind the Minister at a statue of Cathal Brugha, Pádraig Pearse over here and James Connolly behind me. I firmly believe that an Irish Government is best placed to make decisions in the best interests of the Irish people, not unelected bureaucrats in faceless EU institutions making such decisions that undermine democracy. Ireland must resist this constant drive to hand over more of our sovereignty, power and control to the EU, including that in relation to migration policy or control of our borders. It is crucial that we retain what little bit of sovereignty we have left.

Last year, Sinn Féin strongly opposed the vast majority of measures in the EU asylum and migration pact because the majority of the pact's measures were not in Ireland's interests and ran contrary to the wishes of the Irish people as shown in numerous polls. Polls show that many communities believe that the current Government is implementing policies that are not in the interests of Irish citizens but are done at the behest of Brussels.

Sinn Féin supported opting into only two of the measures contained in the pact, namely, the asylum migration management regulation and the Eurodac regulation. We did so for two primary reasons. First, we have to be able to return those who seek to make an asylum application here to the first EU country that they entered or applied for asylum in before travelling onwards to Ireland. An applicant who has already been living in, for instance, France, Spain or Italy should not be able to arrive in Ireland and stay here having claimed asylum in those countries previously. Second, in relation to the Eurodac regulation, we have to be able to access the fingerprint database to ensure we have more information on those who enter the State, assist with vetting and conducting checks, and return asylum seekers to other EU countries, if appropriate. Eurodac would help with tackling child trafficking into Ireland for sexual exploitation, a scandal that was well documented in the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, evaluation report on progress to combat human trafficking. We know that the vast majority of Irish people want to see this commonsensical approach as well as an end to the speculative and greedy cash cow approach to the International Protection Accommodation Service, IPAS, centres that have been imposed on local communities by the Government across Ireland.

Protocol No. 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU, came into effect in its current form in the Lisbon treaty in 2009. Protocol No. 21 provides, through the opt-out, the choice to opt into legislation adopted to govern areas of freedom, security and justice on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, it is a growing trend of the Government to seek to opt into EU measures in areas of freedom, security and justice where Ireland enjoys the right to opt out. This shows shocking disregard for Irish sovereignty. Crucially, once a country opts in, it cannot opt out.

The withdrawal of the motion, with only 24 hours' notice, on the returns regulations reinforces everything that Sinn Féin has been saying from the very beginning, namely, that we should not opt into such motions under Article 3 of Protocol No. 21. It is concerning that the Government was planning to push through an Article 3 opt-in on a regulation where it has now been revealed that Ireland's manner of participation is still under discussion with EU counterparts. This is alarming and it should be a wake-up call for anyone who thinks it makes sense to hand the Government a blank cheque in relation to such regulations.

For Sinn Féin, the issue comes down to sovereignty. This is paramount, considering the three motions under question today. We see a constant drip-drip handing over of our sovereignty to the EU. This undermines democracy and our ability as a country to act in the best interests of the Irish people.

Unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary, Ireland should be making its own decisions on the issues for consideration in these motions, which are, basically, designation of safe countries of origin, designation of safe third countries and the transition of Ukrainians out of temporary protection, which we must expedite. It is crazy to extend this to March 2027. It did not have Government approval and it certainly does not have the approval of the Irish people. We must also assist in the efforts towards peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine and a commitment to encourage Ukrainians to return to their homeland once peace is restored.

Taking three significant proposed regulations as part of one debate on a quiet Thursday afternoon in July shows no commitment whatsoever to sovereignty, democracy or ensuring proper scrutiny. Ireland should not opt into these motions under Article 3, as proposed by the Government, under any circumstances.

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

I want to raise the concerns that I raised at Tuesday’s meeting of the justice committee. What we are being asked to debate today amounts to a significant reshaping of Ireland's approach to international protection and asylum, yet the Oireachtas and its justice committee have not had an appropriate opportunity to properly scrutinise what is proposed before it has been brought here. We are facing three major EU motions, and we are being given no detailed pre-legislative scrutiny, no committee hearings with legal experts, no engagement with human rights organisations or affected communities, and just over three hours of total debate time. That appears to be an exercise in rubber-stamping by the Dáil.

These are not technical amendments or background regulations. These are proposals that will fundamentally shape who gets a fair hearing in Ireland, who is labelled "safe" without individual assessment and who can be turned away based not on their need for protection, but on the route they travelled, and once we opt in, we become bound by rules we did not help shape and cannot revise unilaterally.

Let me take each motion in turn. The first motion proposes a new EU-level list of safe countries of origin. This is a significant change. Under current Irish law, specifically section 72 of the International Protection Act 2015, we determine the list ourselves, based on evidence, our own standards and our international obligations. This regulation would replace that discretion with a binding EU-wide list.

The proposed list includes countries such as Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Bangladesh and India, but we know, and I presume the Government knows, that these countries are not safe for everyone. LGBTQI communities still face criminalisation and violence. Religious minorities and political dissidents are regularly targeted. Being from a stable country does not mean one is from a safe country.

This motion risks replacing the essential, nuanced, case-by-case approach with blanket assumptions. It shifts the burden onto applicants to prove that their countries, which are now officially labelled "safe", are in fact unsafe for them. That is already difficult and traumatising and this change will only make it even harder.

The second motion relates to the concept of a safe third country. It would make it significantly easier to reject applications based on the route a person travelled, not the substance of his or her claim. Under current Irish law, we have only designated the UK as a safe third country. This motion would dramatically lower that threshold. In fact, simply passing through an airport in a designated state without ever claiming asylum there or even being offered protection could be grounds for refusal. That is not how a fair asylum system should operate. People often travel through so-called safe countries because they have no other option. They may not be permitted to seek asylum there, they may face discrimination and they may still be at risk, but under this motion, those experiences would be disregarded and their applications could be dismissed automatically.

The third motion relates to the transition out of temporary protection for people displaced by the war in Ukraine. I understand and acknowledge that this is a non-binding Council recommendation but it still reflects a shift that deserves scrutiny. Since 2022, Ukrainians in Ireland have been protected under the temporary protection directive. It has allowed people to live, work and access education and healthcare. Now, there is pressure across the EU to move these individuals into long-term residence schemes. In theory, that may be reasonable but unless the transition is carefully managed, with clear safeguards, people will fall through the cracks. That includes children in the schools, elderly people with care needs, people with disabilities and those still living in emergency accommodation. We need guarantees that legal status, services and supports will not be disrupted simply because a category expires.

Any transition must be led with compassion and tailored to the realities people are living with.

I see deeper issues across these motions. We are witnessing a trend, not just in Ireland, but across the EU, towards outsourcing our moral and legal responsibilities to processes that are becoming increasingly restrictive. Individual assessments are being replaced by categories. Presumptions are overtaking hearings and speed is being prioritised over fairness. I am a committed supporter of the European Union but I am also very clear-eyed about the direction it is heading. We must be honest about what direction the EU's migration policy and fortress Europe is taking and whether that reflects the values we claim to hold in our Republic. Ireland has long stood for a humane case-by-case approach to international protection. That tradition is now under serious pressure. We are told these proposals will make the system work better, but for whom will they work better? Perhaps they are better for bureaucracies and member states seeking to limit arrivals, but not for a person fleeing violence or persecution. They are not better for the trafficked individual rerouted to a so-called safe state and certainly not better for the vulnerable people who have already lost everything and are looking for protection in a system grown increasingly hostile.

We should be opting into measures that improve fairness, enhance protections and genuinely share responsibility across the EU. These motions do not meet that standard. They move in the opposite direction in narrowing access, weakening discretion and raising the risk of injustice. We have not had the debate these decisions deserve, certainly not at committee level. There has been no meaningful scrutiny by the justice committee, civil society or legal professionals. People with lived experiences have not been included, yet here we are being asked to lock ourselves into a significant legal commitment based on limited information and no public consultation. That is simply not good enough.

The people affected by these decisions deserve better. They deserve fairness, to be heard and a protection system that sees their individual risk and does not deny it by default. I fundamentally disagree with the motions because they do not strengthen the system or reflect our best values and the Oireachtas should not provide legal frameworks it has not been given a real chance to examine. We are not just debating procedures here. We are deciding people's futures, which is worth appropriate scrutiny. I do not agree with this trend that is happening at all. We can do infinitely better. It lacks respect for the mechanisms of Dáil Éireann. We have a justice committee that is perfectly able and suited to scrutinising this legislation in a more appropriate environment before bringing it to the Dáil.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue we all have is that this is not the way to deal with this type of legislation, where we are talking about building up a framework that would have a long-term impact on the migration system in operation in Ireland. As Deputy Gannon said, there were huge opportunities to deal with this at the justice committee. To do so at the last minute on a Thursday in early July does not make an awful lot of sense.

Like my party colleagues, I have a particular issue with the means by which we are talking about opting into these three motions under Article 3 of Protocol No. 21. We are signing up on the basis of qualified majority voting. We do not know exactly what will be decided, but it will be decided. We may even have to vote against it and will then be locked in and have to agree. Most frightening of all is the fact we had a fourth motion that was pulled on the basis of the complexity of the hybrid legal basis. This is a regulation that has been constructed by the Commission dealing with the likes of Ireland, the Schengen states and Schengen-associated states.

We have a very particular situation in Ireland. We are obviously still dealing with the outworkings of the evil that is partition and we have the common travel area. That makes us very different from an awful lot of places. It has been made a lot more difficult on the basis of Britain choosing to leave the European Union. We are dealing with those issues. We could have looked at all these motions, while accepting we could have done a greater level of due diligence, within the Oireachtas. We could also, having had those debates, seen how negotiations went. Article 4 of Protocol No. 21 gives us the option to opt in when we know exactly how such regulations would operate. It is about making the decision that is best for us and best makes sense in Ireland.

We accept there have been huge issues in respect of migration. In general terms, we need to make sure the migration and work permits system is well managed and makes sense from the point of view of those who come in and from the point of view of Ireland and its economy. However, we have had a particular issue with international protection. I do not know how many of us have spoken here about how long it is taking to deal with people when they apply for international protection, as they have a right to do. We need to make sure we look after those who are fleeing war or persecution, but the fact is it is taking us years upon years to deal with people. That is wrong of this State. If people have a right to be here, they should stay and if they do not have a right to be here, then they need to leave. That needs to be managed in the best way possible. It is wrong if we are taking years to get to that point.

As regards the Minister's legislation, he has spoken about his plan for a three-month turnaround for processing applications, including appeals. We are a long way from there at this point. That is the piece that needs to happen. The failure to do so has fed a lot of bad actors, so we need to make sure that is the road we go down. I would like to think we will carry out the proper level of due diligence and will not be dealing with it here in a last-minute scenario.

I have an issue with having to pull a motion out on the basis of the complexity of the issue from a legal standpoint. That says everything about the point we are at.

Sinn Féin opposed the EU asylum and migration pact. We supported opting into two measures, namely, the asylum migration management regulation and the Eurodac regulation. We all understand it makes complete sense that there has to be an element of harmony in how we deal with our European partners and others, and that we put together a sensible system that works for us. However, we have to do what makes sense for Ireland. The proposal is for an amending regulation regarding the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level. While probably nobody has a major difficulty with a lot of what is being proposed, it makes complete sense that we have control of that. The safe third country issue needs to be dealt with. Regarding those who have come from Ukraine, we need a planned transition to end what was a temporary measure that has remained in play.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We in People Before Profit are strongly opposed to the two safe country motions we have before us and that I will focus on in the time available. These are draconian motions that designate countries with appalling human rights records, such as Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia, as safe. The motions allow for people to be deported to so-called safe third countries even when they have no connection to that country. Once a country is designated as safe, a yellow-pack accelerated asylum process is used. Member states can apply border procedures, which in essence means that they can incarcerate people without trial in border detention camps and the whole process has to be completed within three months. The speed of this process obviously means that miscarriages of justice will be far more likely. In other words, whole families and individuals, including children, will be deported back to countries they have fled to face persecution, torture and even death.

The basis for designating countries as safe is inherently flawed. It is based on current recognition rates for people applying for asylum from those countries. The regulation we are being asked to approve states that there is, in general, no risk of "persecution or serious harm", within the meaning of Regulation No. 2024/1347, in Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Morocco and Tunisia, as well as the potential EU candidate Kosovo, as shown by the very low recognition rates.

This is clearly not an unbiased standard as it assumes that there are no or very few injustices in how the system currently operates. I do not believe that is true. The regulation further states that if the recognition rate is 20% or lower, it serves as an indication that applications from that nationality are likely to be unfounded. Even assuming for a moment that Government decisions are always legally correct in their own terms, which again I do not believe, what about the rights of the 20% of people from those countries whose claims were recognised prior to this regulation? Their equivalents in the future will be faced with an accelerated process, a higher burden of proof on them to prove their claim in a shorter space of time and, in reality, a harder time getting their application for asylum approved.

One example of one of these so-called safe countries that we are adding to the list is Egypt. I was in Egypt recently and it did not seem to be a country without fundamental human rights issues. It is an authoritarian dictatorship with arbitrary detentions happening all over the place. It persecutes journalists and does not have free and fair elections. Political activists are routinely rounded up. A point someone made to me when I was in Egypt is that you do not see Palestinian flags in people's homes in Cairo. Why is that? It is not because the people do not support the Palestinians; it is because they know that the Sisi regime will round up people showing a Palestinian flag because it is seen as a political act. It is why the Egyptians could not allow the global march to Gaza to proceed because of the danger it would send a message to their own people that they should have the right to protest.

The EU, in its own documentation on the regulation, makes the following admission:

Human rights defenders, political activists and opponents may face arbitrary arrest and torture, and may be targeted with measures such as travel restrictions and asset freezes.

[...]

Human rights challenges in Egypt remain significant, particularly in relation to the protection of fundamental freedoms, governance and the rule of law.

That does not sound very safe to me. How is it safe? For a trade unionist, a political activist or a human rights defender, Egypt is not a safe place to try to do any of those things. That is obvious from reading the Amnesty reports, Human Rights Watch reports or other reports which will outline the truth about Egypt as a very authoritarian dictatorship.

The EU's and our Government's get-out clause is that designating a country as safe is supposedly "without prejudice to the specific challenges faced by certain groups in the country which may merit particular attention." However, are the people, who are most likely to be fleeing to here or elsewhere and seeking asylum, taking this desperate step of leaving their family, their community, the country that they know behind, not precisely the ones who are likely to be facing persecution? They are the human rights defenders, the LGBTQ people, the political activists and the members of ethnic minorities. However, they are then going to be subject to this accelerated process. There is no special recognition of the specific challenges faced by those who are actually likely to be the ones fleeing and applying for asylum. They are the ones who are going to get punished.

The regulation on safe third countries is also a travesty. It allows for people to be sent to so-called safe third countries that they have no connection to. This can include a country that they have transited to, perhaps in the back of a truck or a shipping container, but also countries they have not been to at all. We know what the weasel words of "safe third countries" really mean. They mean wealthy European countries deporting families to appalling conditions in places like Rwanda and Libya where they are very likely to experience extreme hardship and human rights violations. It is the European Union outsourcing its "immigration problem" by deporting people to horrific and places where they are treated in awful ways.

It is a disgrace that a country among the most responsible for international emigration per head of population is about to inflict this on people in the same situation that so many Irish people faced before. Our Government lobbies year after year on behalf of so-called undocumented Irish immigrants in the US, pleading for them not to be deported and to be given a pathway to legal citizenship. I agree with that lobbying but the hypocrisy of that and how people in equivalent situations are treated here is glaring. At home, the same Government that lobbies abroad for the undocumented Irish is chartering planes to deport schoolkids ripped out of their classrooms, friend groups and communities in front of others, causing real damage to people.

I want to raise a particular case on which I got a load of emails this morning. I really appreciate that people are speaking out on behalf of vulnerable families who are being treated appallingly by this State. Six families live in my community in IPAS centres at the Red Cow Hotel and the Inchicore Suites. This Friday, tomorrow, they are faced with eviction from their accommodation. Today, less than 24 hours before they face this eviction, they have yet to be provided with the location of their next accommodation. I understand that this is happening to dozens of families all over the country at the same time this week. These are people who have been granted asylum so they are not unworthy or whatever. They have gone through the asylum process and have been granted asylum. They, like lots of people in this country, have been unable to find more permanent accommodation despite searching for it tirelessly. They want to remain in their current education and employment. There are kids currently in schools and so on but, like many others, they have been unsuccessful.

Those who have made the difficult decision to accept transfer to other emergency accommodation are yet to receive any information on where this accommodation will be. Despite reassurances in their eviction notices that it will be provided, it still has not been provided. Now, as a result, the residents are reporting harassment by staff in their centre and told to pack up their things as new families will arrive on Friday to take their places. They have also been told that if they find themselves on the streets on Friday, they will not be eligible for emergency homeless accommodation while they remain under the care of IPAS awaiting transfer. That is some care.

It is an incredibly stressful situation for these families, many with young children. With less than 24 hours to go, I appeal to the Government to intervene to pause these evictions until assurances can be provided about where these families will be transferred to. It makes sense for them to stay in the locality where they have connections, roots, employment and school places. I would appreciate a response from the Minister on that.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome members of the Retired Garda Association from Wexford and their respective partners. We all owe them a debt of gratitude.

Michael Collins (Cork South-West, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I speak to the Minister today not just as leader of Independent Ireland or on behalf of my constituents, but on behalf of the tens of thousands of people across this country who feel ultimately betrayed by a Government that has wilfully ceded Irish sovereignty, ignored countless opinion polls and placed the interest of Brussels and bureaucracy above the basic needs of its own citizens. The Government had the option - the legal right under the Lisbon treaty - to opt out of the EU migration pact. Instead, it rolled over and surrendered. It signed us up to binding quotas, border detention policies and an EU-managed asylum system that will dictate whom we accept and how we manage our own borders. We had a choice and the Government choose to give that choice away.

The Irish people never agreed to this. In fact, time and again they said the opposite. Over 70% of the population, according to repeated polls, including RED C and Ireland Thinks, believe this country has already taken too many migrants. That is the reality. That is the voice of a country with a housing crisis, a health crisis, an infrastructural crisis and a Government in absolute denial. Why is it ignoring the will of the Irish people on immigration? Why is it ignoring the concern of exhausted residents in Citywest, Dundrum, Athlone and areas all over Dublin? In my constituency, in communities where services are stretched and schools are full, people are told to just get on with it.

The people of Saggart and surrounding areas were promised that the Citywest facility would be temporary. That promise is now in ashes. The Government has handed over a staggering €148 million of taxpayers' money to make it permanent. There was no consultation, honesty or regard for the community. The Government has betrayed them and they know it. There has been no consultation in the Dáil. How can the Government spend €148 million without approval from Dáil Éireann. Whether we like it or not, that is where democracy starts and ends, by right. However, there was none; this all went on behind the people's backs. The Government spent €148 million on people who have no connections to Ireland, while hours ago I was informed that a much-needed and loved nursing home in Bantry is now being told its doors must be closed, along with another home in Conna.

HIQA informed the receiver in charge of Aperee nursing home in Bantry that it is issuing a closure order for the home. HIQA recognises that there are no clinical or fire safety issues in the nursing home and that the standard of care is very good. The Minister of State is probably asking himself how that relates to the issue before us but I am telling him that we do not have homes for our own people. I held up a picture in the Chamber yesterday of a gentleman who told me I was entitled to do so. He is from Ballinspittle in west Cork but he had no home last night to sleep in. That is an astonishing situation. Last week, I held up another picture. This man is 77 years of age and last week I showed a picture of an 88-year-old woman who had no home. These are Irish people. Surely to God they need to be respected and there needs to be at least some thought given that they are entitled to a home. Now we have two nursing homes that are going to close. Where are the residents to go? They are going to have no home and there is no issue with compliance other than a paperwork issue. All of this has to start and end somewhere.

The bottom line is that the Government has opened up a door and it cannot close it now. It has no credibility. I brought up Citywest on numerous occasions, as well as other areas and called for a proper, open debate. There are people who have come into this country who have been welcomed. I have certainly looked for a lot of work visas for them and they are well entitled to come. However, just banging open the doors and taking off the hinges is not good enough but that is what has happened in this country. We can spend millions on everyone but not focus on our own. While all of this is happening, what do we hear from Ministers? We hear excuses and empty rhetoric. We do not see action.

I will give the House a direct comparison. The Government has earmarked a paltry €100 million in this year's budget to help students and families with college fees. That is barely enough to keep up with inflation, let alone provide real relief to struggling parents. Meanwhile, we are spending billions on international protection and refugee accommodation. The figures released show that over €1.5 billion is being spent this year alone on accommodation services and direct provision for asylum seekers and refugees and that figure is rising every year without any democratic consent. Students are dropping out of college because their parents cannot afford to pay the rent. Parents are working two jobs to pay for books and transport. What is this Government's response? It is to spend more on everyone else but not on our own. That is the whole point I am trying to make here. The spending of billions of euro has not really been approved here. It has been approved by Europe. We cannot be dictated to by Europe every day of the week. We have done our bit in relation to Ukrainian people when the trouble broke out there initially. We have done that but it seems like we are continuously opening our doors. We need further debates in the Dáil, but not divisive debates. People have different opinions and I have to respect that too but a debate is the democratic right of everybody. That democratic right is being refused to Gus, Jennifer and the people who are going to be kicked out of a west Cork nursing home in two weeks. Funding needs to be put in there and not where it is being put at the present time.

Ken O'Flynn (Cork North-Central, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am delighted to see Deputy Paul Murphy and welcome him back from his recent trip to Egypt. I was surprised when I heard Deputy Murphy saying how disappointed he was with Egypt and its Government because he was a number one supporter of the Arab Spring in 2011. I am surprised and shocked to hear that he does not support that regime now, a regime that he took to the streets and vehemently supported previously. What has happened? Oh, I know what it is - they took his phone off him. That is probably what is wrong.

There is something tragic in a nation that no longer has the resolve to enforce its own laws. This motion, designed merely to give effect to the European return regulation, is not just a procedural footnote but is a moment of national retreat. We are speaking of individuals who have entered Ireland, sought asylum, been lawfully heard and lawfully refused. Deputy Murphy said a moment ago that these people have roots in the community. These people, who have been lawfully listened to and legally gone through, do not have roots in the community. They should have not been here in the first place. That is the reality of it. What the Government needs to be doing is exactly what is done in Denmark and France, which is moving people around very quickly and turning it around. It is not that they have roots in the community. They should not have been here at all because they have entered this community incorrectly.

I find it amazing that people say that they have roots in the community when they have only been here five minutes and are here illegally and incorrectly, or they have made false declarations and are sent home because they are not lawfully here. We are following the law and that is what should be done, and correctly. I am amazed when I listen to these statements in the House. How anyone can come along with a statement like that, that they have roots in the community, is beyond me.

I went down to Cork Simon recently and I saw people queueing outside at 7 o'clock in the evening, even though they would not get in until 11 o'clock and would be lucky to get a mattress on the floor. That is what is happening to Irish people, yet in IPAS centres three meals a day are provided to people. There is a big turnaround. There are toiletries, solid beds and the whole lot. Everything is given to them. Everything is given to them, and rightly so if they are genuine, but if those people are not genuine, they should be turned around quickly, removed and sent back to their port of call. That is the reality of it.

I am amazed at the statements that are being made in the House today, this bleeding heart idea which does not really compute with what Irish people are saying and thinking. What Irish people are thinking is that it is about time the Government got fair with everybody.

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government's immigration policy has been an absolute shambles. The Government has disrespected the people of this country. People in the community where I am from ask me every day what is happening to a particular building. I come in here and ask the Minister of State and his party leader but I get no response. I engage with property owners who tell me they are developing a hotel only to find out later, through a leaked document, that it is going to be an IPAS centre. That is what the Government has done. It has treated the people of Ireland like mushrooms. It is keeping them in the dark and feeding them rubbish. After a year or two years of raising this, what has the Government done? Nothing. Then it signs the EU migration pact. The Government cannot manage the system so it hands it over to our European overlords, to let them decide. I have a message for the Minister of State. If he cannot manage his Department, he should hand over the reins to someone who can. He should not hand them over to the European Union. We go to the people seeking a mandate to govern this country and to make decisions for the welfare of our people but the Government turns around and cedes power to the European Union. That is what it has done and it is so frustrating. We have marked the 100th anniversary of this Republic. On that anniversary, the Fine Gael MEP, Seán Kelly, said that 70% to 80% of our laws are made in Brussels. On so many issues that I raise at the committee on agriculture, I am told they are related to a European directive. That is what we are told but it has been signed over by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. That is not what they tell us. What happens when we do not comply with an EU directive? We get a fine. Who pays the fine? It is not paid by the Minister who signed over. No, it is paid by the Irish people.

The reality in relation to the EU migration pact is that we currently do not have the ability to process asylum applications and are looking at fines down the line. Many of the issues raised in relation to the EU migration pact were things we could have implemented ourselves. That is the truth and the Minister of State cannot argue with that point. What was sold to the Irish people was that this pact would streamline the immigration system and speed up processing times, as if to say that we could not do that already. The Minister of State knows that we could but we did not have the will. It is deeply shocking that the Government would seek a mandate from the Irish people and then hand over power to Europe. Then, when it hits the fan and we have a fine, the Government says that it is nothing to do with it, that the EU says so. It is despicable.

In the short time remaining, I want to raise the issue of IPAS centres going into communities which are given no say. Section 5 applications are being submitted right across the country. Last week, in my constituency two section 5 applications were submitted, one for Kevin Barry Street in Ballina and the other for Abbey Street in Ballinrobe. I did some research into the companies involved.

You would want to be an investigator to understand what is happening.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy.

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is submitted by Forbairt Orga Teoranta. I do not have time to go into the detail.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You are right. You do not.

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is a company that is owned by another company that is owned by another parent company, TNM Developments-----

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy, your time is up.

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----which is, in turn, owned by a UK company. The Government is making millionaires of these shell companies that are operating-----

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Suigh síos, Deputy Lawless. Your time is up.

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----in other parts of the country. What does the Government do?

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Lawless-----

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It signs over the power to the European Union.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is there an issue with your hearing? Sit down, Deputy. Your time is up.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I strongly oppose the first and third motions but I think I can support the second motion. With regard to the first motion, I cannot support any proposal that forces Ireland to accept an EU-wide list of so-called safe countries. This is yet another example of Brussels removing our ability to make independent decisions as to who comes into our country. It is a one-size-fits-all policy that undermines our sovereignty. What is worse, it opens the door to even more migrants appealing decisions with no accountability. We need to update our list of safe countries and stop the abuse of the system. It is a pity the former Minister, Deputy Roderic O'Gorman, is not here because he sent out a tweet in several different languages appealing for people to come to Ireland. He said they would have their own front door in three months. It was lunacy.

As for the third motion, which has regard to the transition out of temporary accommodation for Ukrainians, I must say that the special treatment afforded to one nationality over all others is contributing to growing frustration across Irish society. While Irish families struggle to get housing, healthcare and even school places, we are told that resources are unlimited when it comes to accommodating tens of thousands of displaced people. There is a never-ending list of entitlements rolled out for the Ukrainians that Irish people cannot access. We see this in the whole modular homes situation in Clonmel. The OPW, the company and the HSE told me that these units would cost €200,000 each. They are not worth €70,000 or €80,000. They are now costing a staggering €480,000 per unit. It is unbelievable. It is disgraceful. It is rotten to the core and there is huge corruption in it. There has to be. There is no long-term plan, no public consent and no acknowledgement of the strain this is placing on local communities. It is leading to social fragmentation and resentment. The special concessions and protections must be cut back. We can all help people fleeing war but I do not believe anyone agrees with the level of special treatment that has been given here.

On the second motion, I do support stronger application of the safe third country rule. Someone who has passed through multiple safe countries before reaching Ireland should not be permitted to lodge a claim here. We are not a soft target. People think we are but we must change our tune. This is about restoring common sense and respect and ensuring our asylum system is not abused. We must cut our cloth according to measure. We want to be the great people who can take everybody in but we cannot. I welcome the apparent change since the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, took up their positions. I hope it will continue because the way things were going on was unbelievable.

My county has been ravaged by IPAS centres. It started with a centre in Roscrea and there are now centres in Dundrum and outside Thurles. Attempts have been made to make the Kilcoran Lodge Hotel into one. The Minister of State has fond memories of that hotel. He says he was there as a page boy at a wedding years ago. He knows how beautiful it is. Hearn's Hotel in the centre of Clonmel has become such a centre and there is another on the border of Carrick-on-Suir. Those are the ones we know of.

Section 5 exemptions have been applied for in a number of places. Such an application was turned down in respect of Abbey House in Cahir. I am thankful the county council saw that these units could be used for Irish families. There are three High Court cases under way regarding a proposal in Dundrum. The Minister of State knows that, the senior Minister knows it and their officials know it. Despite this, they agreed a contract based on a section 5 exemption granted by Tipperary County Council that has now been shown to have been false and erroneous. The council has conceded in court that it erred in granting that section 5 exemption. We were writing to the chief fire officer for 12 months along with ringing and emailing him. He admitted at a meeting two weeks ago that he never visited the site once. Is that respect for politicians or for the public?

What is happening in Dundrum is shocking. Under the Government's own guidelines, demographics should not be changed by more than 5% and yet it is going to put in 277 IPAS people - God bless them - when there is only 200 people in the village. That is senseless. What the Government is doing is outrageous. It is making millionaires out of cowboys. They are not interested in humanitarian need; they are interested in money. Monaghan has been destroyed by a certain gentleman and we are the same in Dundrum. There are three court cases under way. The people who bought the place are suing as well. They will have to weave their way through. I am waiting for the full report the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, promised to Deputy Michael Murphy and me as to how this contract was granted when there were so many issues with what was going on.

The Government has plundered and ravaged our country. It has disrespected the people. It is time it respected the people. Members of Government, especially the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, are punch drunk from being great people who travel all over the world. They should look after our Irish people. They should respect them, the Constitution and the people who fought for it. We had a debate on the GPO two days ago. What is happening here is nothing short of outrageous. I am told we have no social welfare inspectors. We have two in Waterford city and south Tipperary. People are flying in here every seven or eight weeks to collect copious amounts of money before flying back out again. In the name of God, are we pure fools? I ask that the Government please respect the Irish people and the sovereignty of this country.

Gillian Toole (Meath East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit as a bheith anseo inniu. I take on board the opening remarks of the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, and his comprehensive explanation of the procedures involved in these three out of the four motions we were expecting today. I understand the need for a common approach to procedures for international protection within the European Union. I will keep my remarks quite simple and, I hope, honest. I believe it is fair to say that everyone wants a fair, efficient and humane asylum policy for those seeking asylum and those prospectively hosting people seeking international protection.

I first raised the issue of inward migration with Meath County Council in September 2023. At that time, I was accused of being far-right and was called all sorts of other names. However, in raising the issue, I was trying to establish the truth of the matter and to differentiate between those with a legitimate need for protection and who were fleeing danger and those who were economic migrants or those attracted by social welfare benefits.

In this instance, I am going to share the very hushed concerns of constituents in my area. In the profound interest of social cohesion, Ireland's ability to cope with inward migration must be assessed across all of the pressurised sectors. I refer to housing, healthcare, elder care, education, special education, transport and community infrastructure. To be blunt, we need to solve Ireland's key areas of inflammation and to plan ahead for future generations in clearly defined timelines. Failure to do so would be ignorant, inconsiderate and reckless abandonment of prospective host communities and those who are in genuine need of international protection. At this point in time, there is a high risk of a fracture in community relations among people who are fearful for their safety. Can Ireland avail of the crisis and force majeure regulation derogations from the EU pact on migration and asylum given the crisis in provision in the areas I have covered? I note that this regulation only comes into effect in July 2026 but time is necessary.

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

I will begin by reiterating that it is a central priority of the Government that our immigration laws are robust and that they are enforced. Ireland is committed to the continued advancement of the common European asylum system to ensure a consistent, fair and sustainable asylum procedure at all times, not just at times of migratory pressure. Such a system demands a sharing of responsibility through mirrored approaches to migration and asylum across the European Union. This shared responsibility and shared process will need to be central to our system in future. Ireland has already shouldered some of its responsibility through the adoption of the European migration and asylum pact.

4 o’clock

Opting into the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level and the application of the safe third country concept will move Ireland further towards its aims of ensuring the establishment of a sustainable and coherent system and demonstrate our strong desire to participate in the continued advancement of the Common European Asylum System.

On safe countries of origin, Ireland, at national level, has designated 15 countries as safe countries of origin, most of which are on the list proposed by the European Commission. Ireland will retain the possibility to continue to designate countries as safe countries of origin at national level. That is an important point.

The application of the safe third country concept has been updated to ensure the flexibility of member states to apply that concept in their international protection process, while safeguarding the fundamental rights of applicants. This is an important element of the asylum and migration procedures toolkit. The Council recommendation on a transition out of temporary protection considers that eventually temporary protection must come to an end. However, it recognises the need to ensure a smooth and sustainable transition to eventual reintegration in Ukraine. For that reason, the measure aims to ensure the provision of information to displaced persons to enhance the co-ordination and monitor the exchange of information between member states and Ukrainian authorities.

A co-ordinated exit is crucial to minimise secondary movement and remove the risk of fragmentation while protecting our international protection system, which was a key objective of the directive's activation. It was intended to seek approval for an opt-in to the returns regulation under Article 3. However, the particular manner of Ireland's participation is still under discussion with EU counterparts, given the complexity of the legal basis issue. This issue will be formally discussed by all member states in the relevant working group later this month. Following that discussion, if the emerging consensus is that an opt-on under Article 4 of Protocol 21 would be more appropriate, I will instead ask officials to pursue that path and will seek the House's approval of the same in due course.

It should be noted that these proposals have been formulated to ensure compliance with international human rights standards, which is a central element of the pact. The Council recommendation on temporary protection seeks to ensure that reintegration for displaced persons takes place in a compassionate manner. Therefore, I hope the House will support the exercise of Ireland's opt-in in respect of these measures. I thank the Deputies for their consideration of this important matter.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before I deal with the motions, I welcome to the Gallery Mr. Stephen Doughty, the UK Minister of State for Europe, North America and Overseas Territories in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. He is here with Deputy Lahart and is very welcome.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Wednesday, 9 July 2025.

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: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2024/1348 as regards the application of the "safe third country" concept, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 13th June, 2025.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Wednesday, 9 July 2025.

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: Council Recommendation on a coordinated approach to the transition out of temporary protection for displaced persons from Ukraine, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 26th June, 2025.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Wednesday, 9 July 2025.