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

I thank the Senators for their comments. Section 115 is connected with sections 116 and 117, the sections they oppose. Given that these are all integral parts of the functioning of Part 18, I might outline the reasons behind it. We are trying, inasmuch as possible in respect of this legislation in its entirety, not just of the justice parts, is to mirror arrangements we have with the UK. If the transition period expires at the end of this year without an agreement between the UK and the EU, the Dublin regulation will no longer apply between Ireland and the UK. We need to try to ensure, therefore, that some measures are in place.

Two concepts within EU law, namely, the safe third country concept and the first country of asylum concept, allow for applicants for international protection to be transferred to a third country. The latter has been transposed into Irish law and allows applications for asylum made here to be determined as inadmissible where the person has been granted asylum in the UK.. Part 18, which is opposed by the Senators, will address the safe third country concept. It will enable Ministers to designate a third country as safe where it meets certain criteria in accordance with EU law, which will ensure that the UK can be designated. It will mean that an application for international protection can be deemed inadmissible where the applicant has arrived from a country that has been deemed a safe third country. The intention of this Part is that the UK could be deemed such a country. Part 18 also introduces a mechanism to return applicants for international protection to the UK. This will provide for the return of a person to the UK where his or her application has been deemed inadmissible, on the basis that he or she arrived here from that safe third country or another country which is considered the first country of asylum. Part 18 is integral to ensuring that the international protection process continues and that we, as much as possible, try to mirror the Dublin process, which will fall if there is no agreement. Obviously, if there is an agreement, that will not be the case and we will not need this.

We are trying to substitute like for like here. I understand that Senators have concerns with what is already there but, given the timescale and the challenges with that, I am not sure this legislation is the place to do what they are seeking.