Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for coming to the House. No. 1 is the motion regarding the proposed approval by Seanad Éireann of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending EU Regulation 2024/1348 as regards the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level; No. 2 is the motion regarding the proposed approval by Seanad Éireann of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending EU Regulation 2024/1348 as regards the application of the "safe third country" concept; and No. 3 is the motion regarding the proposed approval by Seanad Éireann of a Council recommendation on a co-ordinated approach to the transition out of temporary protection for displaced persons from Ukraine. All three motions will be debated together and decided separately.

Before I call the Acting Leader to move No. 1, I welcome to our Gallery friends of Deputy Ivana Bacik, who served here for many years and we miss her greatly, and a group from Rathmines University of the Third Age. They are most welcome to Seanad Éireann today. I also welcome the group from the North Wexford Historical Society, who are guests of another former Member of the Seanad, Malcolm Byrne, now a TD.

Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Seanad 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 Seanad Éireann on 16th May, 2025.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I too welcome the group from the Rathmines University of the Third Age. Coincidentally, they are from my constituency. I was here yesterday and the Terenure men’s club and the Ringsend active retirement group, also from my constituency, were in. I do not know what is going on here.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We arrange that specially.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Every time I come in here, there seems to be a local constituency group, so I thank the Cathaoirleach for that.

I stand here to ask the Seanad to approve these motions to opt in to these three proposals in the field of international and temporary protection. As the Cathaoirleach knows, Ireland is committed to supporting and advancing the development of a common European system of asylum so that we have a consistent, fair and efficient asylum procedure in ordinary times and times when there can be crisis situations, as was the case in Ireland last year.

In 2024, Ireland opted in under Article 4 of Protocol No. 21 to seven, what I refer to as non-Schengen, measures of the migration pact. On 29 April 2025, the Government approved my proposal that we draft a new international protection Bill, which would, in effect, transpose into Irish law the measures contained within those European Union regulations and directives.The reason I am here is that on 16 April 2025 the European Commission published a proposal for a regulation amending the asylum procedures regulation as regards the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level. This regulation provides for the first time in EU law for the possibility and conditions to designate safe countries of origin at Union level. As the Cathaoirleach will be aware, we already do that at national level pursuant to section 72 of the International Protection Act. The possibility for member states to designate countries as safe countries of origin at national level is retained and will be retained into the future. It is proposed to designate all EU candidate countries, which are currently Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Türkiye and Ukraine, as well as Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco and Tunisia as safe countries of origin at Union level. As I mentioned a moment ago, under section 72 of the International Protection Act 2015, I as Minister for Justice can make an order designating a country as a safe country of origin. To date, that has been done by me and my predecessors in respect of 15 countries. The 15 countries we have designated as safe overlap to a certain extent with the countries proposed at EU-wide level. The countries we designate safe are Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Egypt, Georgia, India, Kosovo, Malawi, Montenegro, Morocco, North Macedonia, Serbia and South Africa. When one compares the countries identified in our national legislation as safe countries with the countries proposed to be designated safe at EU-wide level, one will note the EU list contains three countries that are not on the Irish list, namely, Colombia, Türkiye and Tunisia. 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 part of the comprehensive approach to migration set out in the migration pact. That is the proposal in respect of the safe countries of origin at EU level. I am seeking permission from the Seanad to avail of our opt-in procedure under Article 3 of Protocol No. 21 which will allow us, as Senators will know, to get actively involved before the procedure is finalised and put in place as a regulation.

The second motion concerns a different proposal concerned not with safe countries but "a safe third country". At present, under section 72A of our legislation we can designate another country as "a safe third country". To date, we have only done it in respect of one country, namely, the United Kingdom, which includes the Isle of Man. However, 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 third country considered safe for the applicant. Currently, I may, by virtue of section 72A of the International Protection Act, designate by order a country as a safe third country. As I said, the only country so designated under our legislation is the UK, which includes the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

The asylum procedure regulation will govern the safe third country concept at an EU level when pact measures come into effect and when the international protection Bill is enacted by these Houses in June 2026 or beforehand. 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 Ireland is strategically aligned with fellow member states on a multilateral basis to benefit from opportunities and address challenges. 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 EU migration pact. Opting in under Article 3 of Protocol No. 21 would, as I said, allow Ireland to influence the proposals during the legislative process, giving potential to mitigate any aspects of the proposals may cause difficulties for us.

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 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 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 our 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, 8 July. I am going to reflect on that discussion and if the emerging consensus is that an opt-in under Article 4, instead of Article 3, of Protocol No. 21 would be preferable, I will instead ask officials to pursue that path and will subsequently be back before this House seeking approval at a later date for an Article 4 opt-in.

In respect of the other proposal before the House, 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; otherwise it is no longer temporary protection. 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 I have outlined 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 state's international protection system, while acknowledging that many persons enjoying temporary protection have been in the Union for several years. We need to take into account that if we decided to just end temporary protection, the strong likelihood is every Ukrainian person here would simply decide to apply for international protection. Given there are approximately 87,000 Ukrainian people in the country it would put extraordinary pressure on our system, specifically the IPO and IPAT, if that were to occur.

It is important for Ireland to opt in to all these proposals to ensure Ireland's immigration system is robust, but also effective and efficient. Opting in to the three measures I am seeking approval for would also underline Ireland's commitment to EU values and its support for the EU's migration system and would demonstrate Ireland's continued solidarity with our EU partners. I thank the Cathaoirleach and will briefly state again I am seeking the approval of Seanad Éireann to permit Ireland to opt in to the three measures before the House under Article 3 of Protocol No. 21. That will enable us to participate before the legislative measure is finalised. In respect of the fourth measure, which is the returns measure, I need to consider more what is going to happen in the European Commission and if it looks like Article 4 of Protocol No. 21 is the most preferable way to get into it, I will be back here at some date in the future looking for approval to opt in under Article 4 should Ireland be permitted to get into the returns regulation.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I thank him for his contribution. I welcome to our Distinguished Visitors Gallery, born in Memphis and now a state Senator in Mississippi from district 15, which is halfway between Memphis and Jackson, I believe, two great cities, Bart Williams, his wife, Cynthia, and daughter Emily. They are welcome to Seanad Éireann. Bart is a great friend of lieutenant governor Delbert Hosemann who is a great friend of Ireland and a big supporter of Notre Dame as well. Bart, Cynthia and Emily are most welcome. Thank you for being here.

Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Fearaim fáilte mhór roimh an Aire ar ais go dtí an Teach seo inniu. The Minister is very welcome back to the House this afternoon. I compliment him again on his attendance in this House. He is a regular visitor here and it is very much appreciated. I know he has a lot on his desk at the moment but the respect he clearly shows towards this House is noted and appreciated by us all so gabhaim buíochas leis as sin.

I am happy on behalf of the Fianna Fáil group here to take on board the recommendations that the Minister has outlined in great detail this afternoon. It is vitally important when it comes to migration that we have a European response to the problem. Not doing so, if we were left to our own devices, would very much isolate us. The EU migration pact is an important step forward in our having a proper, co-ordinated EU response to this particular issue. On the three proposals the Minister outlined, I am happy to go on his recommendation. Having further time to look at the other issue makes perfect sense. In due course, when he has had time to reflect on that, he will be back to us with his thoughts and recommendations on that.

It is interesting that the list we have of safe countries and the list the EU is operating off are quite similar. There are only three countries which the Minister mentioned, Colombia, Tunisia and Türkiye, which we do not have on our list. It is notable that the lists are very similar. What the Minister outlined on the Ukrainian situation and temporary protection makes good common sense. I am happy to do that.

When it comes to migration, we are all looking for a system, whatever shape or form that takes, that is firm but fair. Since the Minister took office, he has had a lot on his desk. This is one issue which he has taken great control of. I would be glad if he could share up-to-date numbers of those coming to our country seeking international protection and how that compares with the previous 12 months. I would also be grateful if he could outline his ambitions for the turnaround time, if I might put it that way, for dealing with applications. What is the target? What is the current timeframe for to turn around the applications and how that compares with the previous 12 months or 24 months? That would be useful to see where we are.

The issue of migration is not going to go away. I would be interested to know what the figures are for those seeking international protection here and to reflect on those. We can be very proud of our record in this country. We have been very fair. We have opened up our doors to the Ukrainian community who fled the horrible situation in their country. We have opened our arms and houses to them. The generosity of the Irish people is to be noted in that regard. We can be very proud of how we reached out and helped the Ukrainian community. It is amazing how many of them have integrated into our society and how many are working here in this country. From speaking to many of them, I know their desire is to go home whenever it is safe to do so. They are contributing to our society and I very much welcome that. We can be very proud of all we have achieved in that regard.

I am happy to proceed as the Minister outlined. I would be grateful if, when he has the opportunity, he would come back to me on the questions I have raised in my contribution.

Joe Conway (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is aoibhinn liom an Aire a fheiceáil ar ais arís. Tá sé de nós aige a bheith anseo go rialta agus, mar a dúirt an Seanadóir ansin, bainimid go léir sásamh as é a bheith anseo.

I was somewhat of the hope that my colleague, Senator McDowell, would be here to ply his considerable wiles and perspectives on this question. I take it he is unavoidably held up so I will bat on as best I can.

I understand there is significant and broad support for these measures among our group. Earlier this week, I spoke of the phenomenon in the seanfhocal i nGaeilge of being a “Taidhgín an dá thaobh”. Well, we are over 50 years a member of the European Union and we cannot be Taidhgín an dá thaobh. Either we are in it or we are out of it and I think this significant measure is very inclusive and very protective for the European Union. As such, it merits great support and being looked at as an antidote to the existential threats that are coming at Europe from many directions, from over as far as the Urals and many of the movements in our political partners in the European Union.

It is remarkably sensible, inclusive and in line with what the European Union has put forward. As a sovereign nation we should be in there working with our partners to devolve the best system of immigration, third-country status and enlightened immigration policies that are needed at the moment. They are so needed but we have to tread very cautiously because we have to maintain the status of our European and democratic way of life. These things are singly important to all democracy-loving people on this island and across the Continent.

Tugaim mo fhíorthacaíocht don Aire agus don Rialtas. Go n-éirí go geal leis an rún seo.

Garret Kelleher (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sharing time with Senator Cathal Byrne. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht teacht isteach arís chun an t-ábhar seo a phlé linn. Again, I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber to articulate the importance of the common European asylum system and in particular the EU migration and asylum pact. In an enlarged European Union and at a time of volatility on the international stage with conflicts in different countries, it has become even more important that we work together with our European partners.I thank the Minister for attending the meeting of the Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, where he articulated the importance of opting in and influencing the legislative process. On behalf of the Fine Gael group, I again thank him for his attendance and assure the House we are fully supportive of the proposals before us today.

Cathal Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I acknowledge our guests in the Distinguished Visitors Gallery. About six years ago, I spent a week in Mr. Williams's district, believe it or not. I had a very enjoyable and pleasant time and the people there were very welcoming and accommodating. He and his family are most welcome here today.

I thank the Minister very much for coming into the Chamber. As my good colleague beside me said, the Fine Gael group is supporting these motions. I will contribute in general terms about immigration. It is important that these issues be discussed in the Houses of the Oireachtas and that conversations happening among the public be reflected in this Chamber and down the hall. In a general sense, I am supportive of immigration and recognise the benefits of it. I think immediately of our hospitals, healthcare system, educational institutions and hospitality sector, and the many people who have come here through the work permit programme or sought asylum, been accepted and been granted asylum and leave to remain in this country and the contribution they have all made. I recognise also the contribution of the new Irish, those individuals who have applied through our mechanisms to become Irish citizens and have been granted citizenship and the contribution they have gone on to make to the country.

The other side of the coin is that it is important we have a migration system that allows for firmness and fairness, as was mentioned. It should also be fast. It is so important that measures like these will allow for faster processing of applications and the designation of a country as a "safe country", which will allow officials in the immigration system to process those applications more swiftly. That is very important. I recognise the work the Minister has done and the work done by his predecessor, my party colleague the Minister, Deputy Helen McEntee, in the area of deportations. As a country, it is important that there be a mechanism that grants the State the ability to deport people who have applied for asylum and been refused and have then gone through the appeals process and, ultimately, had that application refused, and have then been asked to leave the country but have not done so. It is so important that the work done in this area proceed and progress, including in regard to the call for greater resources to ensure our migration system complies with the three principles of being fair, fast and firm.

I acknowledge the right of many people who have concerns about the immigration system in the country. It is a conversation being had in bars, in the street, at GAA matches, in the workforce and in so many communities across the country. We should move from the emergency system we have seen in recent years, where individuals with the ability to make private accommodation available have received massive sums from the State. We should move away from that model and towards one that is State-owned, whereby the State is resourcing the accommodation. I recognise the work done in securing some of these facilities across the country and the work that is continuing to be done to ensure there is resourcing and accommodation available for individuals who come to the country to seek assistance in the most difficult situations. Once those applications have been processed and have gone through the system, it is important that firm action be taken. If it is the case that somebody receives permission to remain in the country, they should be swiftly issued with a PPS number and the ability to apply for and take up employment and to make a contribution to the economy. I recognise the work done in this area to date. As my colleague outlined, the Fine Gael group supports the Minister's proposals and will be voting accordingly.

Nicole Ryan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister back to the House. It is good to have him back with us today. We are being asked to debate three significant motions concerning regulations the Government is proposing we opt in to under Article 3 of Protocol No. 21 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This is not a debate about whether we need a fully functioning, fair and efficient migration system. We do, of course, and we all acknowledge that. This debate is actually about sovereignty, scrutiny and whether the Government should be handing Brussels a blank cheque to set policy in areas where we still have the right to decide for ourselves. Until yesterday, four motions were due to be debated. That number changed when the motion on the EU returns regulation was suddenly withdrawn. Quite frankly, that withdrawal tells us everything we need to know about why this Government's approach is flawed and reckless. It is extraordinary and deeply worrying that the Government is preparing to opt in to regulations where the nature of Ireland's participation is still being discussed with EU partners. It was only at the eleventh hour, citing the complexity of the hybrid legal basis, that the motion was pulled. If anything, this proves our point that the Government should not be opting in early under Article 3 when it has the option to wait until Article 4 and to make an informed decision.

Sinn Féin has been consistent. Where someone is not entitled to remain in the State, the State must act. Deportation orders should be enforced and tracked, but the Government cannot continue to pretend that surrendering more and more decision-making powers to the EU is somehow the answer. Let us remind ourselves that Article 4 of Protocol No. 21 allows Ireland to opt in to EU regulations after they have been adopted, once we know exactly what we are signing up for. This is a prudent and responsible approach. What the Government is instead doing is rushing to opt in early under Article 3 and, in doing so, binding the State to whatever comes out of the EU-level negotiations, even if it does not serve our best interests. Once we opt in under Article 3, we are bound. We have no veto and there is no going back. That is just bad governance.

The three motions before us deal with the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level, the application of the safe third country concept and the transition out of temporary protection for those displaced by the war in Ukraine. Each of these is important and deserves proper scrutiny and decisions that should be made here in the Chamber and not imposed by a majority vote in Brussels. I will deal with each motion in turn. Starting with that relating to safe countries of origin, Ireland already has the power to designate countries as safe for the purposes of international protection. That is provided to us under the International Protection Act 2015. We currently have 15 such countries, as the Minister outlined, including Albania, Georgia and Brazil. Sinn Féin supports the use of accelerated procedures in these cases to ensure efficiency and integrity in our system. There is no added value, though, in surrendering this power to the EU. In fact, doing so could hinder our ability to make decisions based on the realities here on the ground, which may differ significantly from those of the larger Schengen states. If we already have the tools, and we do, why would we give the power away? Why allow a Brussels-wide list to override decisions made here by a Government accountable to the Irish people?

The second motion deals with safe third countries. This concept is already in Irish law. In fact, as the Minister mentioned, the UK is currently the only area designated as a safe third country. Recent legislative changes were made to facilitate this following legal challenges. Again, however, the EU regulation would take things further, removing the requirement for there to be a clear connection between the applicant and the third country. That regulation seeks to make transit through a country proof of connection and, therefore, the safe third country concept could be invoked. Again, if we want to adopt our laws in a way that reflects Irish values and serves our system, we can do that ourselves. What we should not do is lock ourselves into a one-size-fits-all EU measure under Article 3 before the final text is even clear.

The third motion concerns the transition from temporary protection. Sinn Féin has opposed the extension of the temporary protection directive to 2027. We said it was not sustainable and we were criticised for that. Now, ironically, the EU is proposing that this plan end, which is exactly what we had called for. This transition should be led by the Government based on what is right for Ireland and not by following a co-ordinated EU plan that may not reflect the unique pressures we face from housing to integration. We also cannot forget that temporary protection created a two-tier system here in Ireland and that schemes like the ARP exacerbated rental markets, offering supports not available to other people in housing distress. We need a transition but we also need control over how that transition happens. Signing up to an EU-wide approach under Article 3 would remove that control. We can do better for people. This debate is not about opposing the principles behind these regulations. It is about process, sovereignty and democratic accountability. The Irish people elected us to make decisions in this Chamber, not to outsource those decisions to Brussels behind closed doors. Sinn Féin calls on the Government to withdraw these opt-ins under Article 3 and to reserve our right to make decisions under Article 4 with full information and proper scrutiny. Once we sign up under Article 3, that is it. There is no room for change and no room to opt out. That is not how migration policy should be made; it should be made in sovereignty in a democratic state. For that reason, Sinn Féin will vote against all three motions. I urge others in the House to do the same.

Nessa Cosgrove (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No one is disputing that we need a fair and efficient emigration and migration policy but the motions under discussion are serious in nature and will have a significant impact on the rights of people who have sought protection here. There is an inherent danger in rushing through any legislation and when legislation pertains to the rights of people who could subsequently be removed from this jurisdiction and therefore be unable to avail of any appeal process or rectification of errors, the legislation deserves proper scrutiny. The proposals were only recently published and were brought to our attention a week ago. They need to be examined properly through the committee system, whether in the justice committee or the European affairs committee. We cannot possibly determine this afternoon the impact the regulations will have.

Senator Ryan referred to the fact that the regulations establishing a common system of return of third country nationals legally in the EU have been withdrawn. That is surely an admission that more scrutiny is required. The proposals relating to third countries considered safe is extremely reminiscent of the UK's Rwanda policy. This proposal seems to allow for member states to decide an application is inadmissible and yet the individual or individuals cannot be returned to their country of origin. Surely if it is not safe for a person to return to their country of origin, they should be granted asylum here or at least leave to remain here until it is safe to be returned to that country. The law currently requires any safe country a person may be deported to must be a country to which they have a connection. The new regulation appears to remove this requirement and is likely to result in a third country setting itself up as a safe country to receive people we have decided we do not want, and to charge accordingly. The Rwanda policy in the UK was ridiculed at the time it was introduced as one of Boris Johnson's most bonkers policies and was withdrawn by the Labour Government. It is estimated to have cost the UK taxpayer £700 million and resulted in a total of four voluntary deportations. Surely we have made enough bad policy decisions in this country that we do not need to go back to neocolonial policy.

There have to be serious questions surrounding what the regulations consider to be a safe country. The first proposal would designate all EU candidate countries as safe countries of origin. These include Albania, Bosnia, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Türkiye and Ukraine. Europe is telling us we need to spend 5% of our gross domestic product on defence against the Russians and then it is declaring Georgia and Ukraine safe. Outside of that, the EU will also designate Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco and Tunisia as safe countries of origin. I do not know how many of us would fancy going on holidays to Ukraine or Colombia.

I appreciate Pride Month is over but we have to bear in mind the International Protection Act requires protection to be given where there is a risk of persecution on the grounds of sexual orientation. Is it not relevant to a safe country designation that in Egypt, for example, same-sex activity is punishable by up to 17 years in prison, with hard labour, fines and deportation. Where would a gay person deported from Ireland to Egypt be deported to? Would it be back to Ireland? What if that gay person seeking protection was originally from Egypt? Does Egypt then cease to be a safe country? Do we end up with a game of human ping-pong between Ireland and Egypt as an individual is deported back and forth? It is not a joke. It is very serious and I know everyone is taking this very seriously. ILGA-Europe publishes an annual Rainbow Europe review of the human rights situation in every European country. According to it, Türkiye comes in with a score of 5%, ahead of only Russia and Azerbaijan. Georgia is sixth last on 12%. So-called safe countries clearly are not safe for everyone.

We are voting against all the motions. If these proposals are passed by the Houses, as Senator Ryan said, they are in effect in Irish law and cannot be challenged in courts. I urge my fellow Senators to please reject these motions.

Aidan Davitt (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I join colleagues in welcoming the Minister to the House. He has shown in his short time in the ministry that he is an extremely hard-working Minister and has taken decisive action in that time. I commend him on the hard decisions he has made. It is not easy to make such decisions and I am sure he will face lots of ire due to them.

The recommendations from the EU seem to be quite reasonable. I do not think this is anything knee-jerk. It seems most of our compatriots in Europe agree and are of like minds. Many have a much stronger line on immigration than we do. Of course, many of them feel the brunt of it more heavily than we do. Through the pact, there is a certain sense of equalisation. It is quite a reasonable measure and the Minister has my full co-operation and support.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I share the concern many have expressed about the proposals before us. I echo what we have heard across the House about recognising migration as something that has happened for centuries and millennia and something that is often a net positive for countries. Ireland, with its history of migration in different economic and political circumstances, circumstances of conflict and so on, as well as its record of contribution globally, should have a particular understanding of migration.

Part of the context around migration is that right now we have the highest levels ever recorded of displaced and internally displaced people worldwide. The drivers for much of this increased migration are conflicts, our increasingly militarised world and our increasing focus on conflict. That is something Europe needs to reflect on, as one of the great arms-producing areas of the world and a part of the world that is, it seems, deeply committed to escalating militarisation internationally. That is alongside our greater contribution to climate change, which is one of the greatest and most desperate drivers of people moving. We need only look to the micro context of Gaza to see that people move for hunger. The extreme famine conditions we saw recently in the Horn of Africa and elsewhere have been exacerbated by climate and by the failure of western countries, including European countries, to step up to their responsibilities. We have to consider that context, rather than employing tunnel-vision language around the burden of migration within Europe and how to deal with it. Let us talk about the burden of poverty, conflict and environmental devastation that is being placed on people around the world.

I turn to my specific concerns on the proposals before us. Asylum processes need to be fair and functioning, but that cannot come at the expense of human rights. At the heart of every application is a human being, a person or sometimes a family, whose rights must be respected as they make a claim for asylum in Ireland. The motions raise concerns about the human rights of those individuals and families.

The first proposal regards opting in to the asylum procedures regulation, which provides that the EU can designate safe countries. It states a country can only be designated safe if it is shown there is no persecution, as defined by EU regulation. However, several of the countries that will be deemed safe by the EU regulations have well-documented human rights violations, including violent repression of political opposition, imprisonment of journalists, widespread gender-based violence and, as has been highlighted, violence and penalties against those who are LGBT simply for their existence. These are also incredibly dangerous place for human rights defenders. Italian courts, for example, have ruled that some of the countries the EU designates as safe are not, in fact, safe.There is a serious concern around how these EU regulations will work in practice. For example, one criterion for a county to be deemed safe is that the EU-wide recognition rate is below 20%. This is a blunt tool. It is a standardised mechanism or an algorithm for making a decision rather than being a safety assessment, which is what should be required, with regard to the individual asylum applicants and their potential safety. Again, it can lead to blanket discrimination by country of origin rather than individuals accessing their rights and having their rights vindicated.

In terms of the well-documented human rights violations in some of the EU-designated safe countries, applications from these countries will be fast-tracked. The fast-tracking of these in these circumstances will undermine the human rights of the applicant. Speeding up these processes without adequate resources can lead to mistakes. We had situations in the past of extraordinarily poor decisions being made in the first round that needed to be reversed on appeal. I recall situations where cut-and-paste decisions were being made where the gender of the person was wrong. There were so clearly cut-and-paste decisions historically in Ireland where people had to have that corrected on appeal, for example. These mistakes often have life and death consequences for individuals.

The legal supports are inadequate and many may go through the system without even meeting a lawyer. We need a properly resourced asylum system that gives safe and legal routes for asylum seekers and refugees. There is only one organisation in Ireland that can assess torture victims, and it has a six- to 12-month waiting list. That is the kind of area where considerable focus and resources should be placed on ensuring the dignity of the applicants and their personal safety assessment. Human dignity is a fundamental European value. The Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU states, "Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected." The proposal before us do not guarantee that.

There has been some spectacle around the issue of deportation flights. Many people were disturbed to see five children deported from the country last month. A principal at the school two of the children attended outlined how their mother was waiting on a scheduled immigration appointment at the time of the deportation. The children were on the football team and had participated in the GAA for two years. They had friends. They were well integrated in the community. The school advocated for them to be able to stay. These are questions regarding protections. How does this serve the public interest? Is it simply that we are talking of our capacity for housing and these kinds of issues are being put in? These are failures in the provision for persons in terms of conditions of living well in Ireland. It is very hard to see how the balance of risk to an individual is balanced here with the public interest. Within the proposal before us, the construct of non-entry could allow for indefinite detention at borders. UN experts have stated that detaining migrant children is never in the best interests of the child, is always in violation of children's rights, and, I would say again, is not in the public interest.

The second proposal relates to the application of the safe third country. The third proposal has been removed. My time is running out, so I am actually going to focus on the proposal that has been removed because it is key. As has been said, the fact that it has been removed reflects the concerns that are there because the same logics are underpinning the withdrawn third proposal, which I think the Minister said we will consider if we join it under Article 3 or Article 4.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Article 4.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Let us be clear, however; I do not believe we should join it at all. Let us look at what was in that proposal that has been withdrawn, which comes from the same kind of logic in terms of safe countries. It comes from the same kind of perspective, which is a neocolonial perspective and a colonial perspective in terms of determining or arbitrating the lives of others. The change would mean that rather than having to have a connection to the country a person might be deported to, it would say the concept of a country of return would include, among other things, habitual residence, first country of asylum, third country where the individual has a right to enter and reside and, crucially, third countries where there is an agreement or arrangement concluded bilaterally or at EU level. Therefore, it is a country that the EU strikes a deal with. Let us look at the record of those in terms of the immigration control deals Europe has put in place in the past to keep people from even reaching European borders. Consider the immigration control deal we had with Libya, where the most horrendous human rights abuses have been documented, or the immigration control deal we struck with Sudan that contributed to the arming of what became actors in the war that is ongoing there currently. Those are some of the ways the EU has struck deals in its 11 immigration control deals. There was the insertion of borders between countries that did not have borders between them previously because they are to serve EU interests. That is the record of the kinds of deals Europe has struck with regard to European immigration control. I would call it nonsense, but it is too severe and serious in its consequence. This is the El Salvador piece or the Rwanda piece whereby Europe can designate a country and state that, even if these people have nothing to do with or no connection to this country, because Europe has a deal with that country, we will send them there. It is an outsourcing, not of the vindication of human rights, but it is a derogation and an abdication of our duty around human rights and international law, and it is a displacement and outsourcing that will, in effect f effectively sending people to situations where their rights cannot be vindicated. That is what was in the third proposal, which has been pulled back, and that is a deeply colonial logic. Let us have a deeper consideration of all the proposals, given that this was part of the picture. Let us pull back and consider them all with regard to an Article 4 accession or non-agreement or non-opt in. Clearly, these are logics that need interrogation in Ireland, which, as one of the only countries in Europe with a colonial history of being colonised, should have a particular attention to these consequences.

Sarah O'Reilly (Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister. Reading through the proposed motions, the first thing that struck me was that we could have been doing this all along ourselves and, indeed, we have been doing it to an extent. Ireland should not have opted into the EU migration pact when we have the full capability to govern and legislate on migration ourselves. Now, we find ourselves in the scenario where we will have to adhere to an annual specific number of relocations and financial contributions at an EU level. We have ceded power to the EU on this.

To lock ourselves into an agreement when we have no idea what the financial state of the country will be in the future is incredibly shortsighted. We are now bound by this agreement rather than the Irish State and Irish people having the option to choose for ourselves our own policy on immigration. However, this is not about the responsibility of the Government or the capabilities of the Irish people. This is about our Taoiseach and our Tánaiste trying to be the best boys in Europe. Given the Government's subservience to the EU on all matters, whether it is immigration, neutrality or agriculture, we cannot trust that it will advocate for our best interests when it comes to the migration pact. It is only because of Aontú that the level of Government incompetence regarding immigration has come to light.

Most of the information and statistics in the public domain about immigration were uncovered by Aontú through parliamentary questions. We have long proposed the need for an Irish sea border to monitor the movement of people entering the country. Our Government needs to work with the British Government to see this implemented. Aontú is part of the North-South Inter-Parliamentary Association, and we will raise this issue on these forums to ensure cohesive and direct action happens. We have also highlighted the need for data collection and comprehensive record-keeping. In fact, one of the selling points of the EU migration pact was the ability of member states to share information regarding screening. What has not been published is that we cannot opt in to these screening regulations because we are not a member of the Schengen area. We still have no idea of the cost of this pact to the Irish taxpayer, but it is estimated that the additional staff alone are set to cost €32 million per year. The Government's decision to opt in to the EU migration pact is not because of a commitment to reforming and strengthening our immigration system, but about ceding power to Europe. If the Government is happy to relinquish any difficult policy decisions to the EU, then perhaps its members are in the wrong profession.

From the start, we have advocated for a strong immigration policy that distinguished between those who need help and those who do not. Ireland is capable of accomplishing this without allowing the EU to happily legislate for us at an astronomical cost. What happens if we say "No" to the EU? If we had said "No" to the pact, would the EU have fined us or taken us to court? That is not how democracy should work.

Sharon Keogan (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was probably one of the strongest opponents of Ireland opting in to this migration pact in this House along with a small number of Independent Senators. People are entering this country illegally and when people enter illegally, they have to be dealt with and returned. People are sick of people entering this country illegally and not facing the consequences of it. The Minister stated that the proposals were being accepted to ensure Ireland's immigration system is robust. I do not believe it is robust, I do not believe it is effective and I do not believe it is sufficient. I do believe the Minister is making progress, but he needs to do more. He definitely needs to do more. They are still coming in through Belfast. It seems very little has been done to increase Border patrols with the PSNI and An Garda Síochána. Will the Minister address that today? I wish him well because if any Minister is going to tackle illegal immigration, it will be him. We want a firm message to go out that if people are here illegally, they will be deported. The message must go out that they must get out or be put out. I wish the Minister luck and continued success in his role.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I listened to the Senators very carefully and I thank them for their contributions. I will try to respond to the points they raised but if I miss a point, I apologise. Senator Gallagher asked a couple of succinct questions. He asked how many people have sought international protection in Ireland to date this year. The answer is 6,000 in the first six months of the year. It was considerably lower than last year. In 2024, 18,500 people sought international protection in Ireland, while in 2022 and 2023, the figure was 13,500. Looking at the figures, I believe that this year's figure will be lower than in 2022, 2023 and 2024. The Senator also asked how many applications had been processed this year. The answer is 9,475. Of those applications, 81% were refused or ruled inadmissible. The Senator asked what the turnaround time was. I want to see a turnaround time of three months between the hearing of the application at the IPO and the determination on appeal in the second instance. The IPO has become considerably faster. It is very efficient. I need to introduce the same efficiencies into the appeals board. In the past couple of weeks, I have appointed 36 new members to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, which will have the effect of speeding it up.

Bhí mé ag éisteacht leis an Seanadóir Conway. Dúirt sé go bhfuil Éire in áit cosúil le "Tadhg an dá thaobh". That is a bit unfair. We have an option in terms of Protocol No. 21, which was agreed many years ago, whereby we could opt in to justice and home affairs matters if we decided to. Some Members have asked what we are doing about sovereignty. This is us exercising Irish sovereignty. The elected Members of this House and the Lower House are making a determination as to whether we opt in to these measures, and I am asking them to permit opting in under Article 3.

Senators Kelleher and Byrne made contributions in respect of the immigration and asylum processes. There is no doubt that immigration has served this country well but when it comes to immigration, we also need to recognise that we have to have rules. No country in the world has an immigration system that does not have rules. All I am trying to do is achieve a controlled immigration system. Asylum is a small part of the immigration system. Tens of thousands of people come to Ireland every year on work permits, thousands come to Ireland each year on student visas, thousands come for holidays and individuals come seeking international protection. No matter what element it comes under, we have to have rules to respond to it.

Senator Nicole Ryan's main criticism was that we should be opting in to all these measures under Article 4 as opposed to Article 3. It is traditionally the case that we do opt in under Article 4 but the advantage of opting in under Article 3 of Protocol No. 21 is that we are then able to become part of the discussions and negotiations that lead to the finalisation of the legislative measure. If we opt in under Article 4, as the Senator advocated, the measure is made and we either opt in to it or not. We would not participate in the making of it. She asked why we are handing over this power to designate safe countries to the EU. We are not. We would still retain the power under section 72 and in the new Bill, which will also provide for it, to designate countries as safe countries. I as Minister can designate whatever countries I believe it is appropriate to designate as safe. Parallel to that will be an EU system where the EU will designate countries. There will be many overlaps, as we have seen, but the real benefit of it is that if the EU has designated a country as a safe country, it will be much easier for Ireland to designate that country as a safe country because there will be widespread recognition within the EU that it is accepted. I also think that since we have a harmonised asylum system within the EU, it would be unusual, as exists at present, that some countries are designated by some countries as safe while other countries are not designated as safe by another country. There is a benefit to having a harmonised response. The same point applies to safe third countries.

Senator Ryan also spoke about temporary protection. I know what the Sinn Féin policy is. Everyone in the EU, including Ireland, recognises that temporary protection must come to an end. Had the Sinn Féin policy been implemented, Ireland would just have pulled out of temporary protection, which would have had extraordinary consequences for Ireland. First, as I said in my opening remarks, the 87,000 Ukrainians who are here would immediately apply for international protection so, as opposed to having 6,000 people applying for international protection this year, we would be up to over 90,000. Any termination of temporary protection, which will happen, has to be done on a harmonised basis with the EU, which is why this is being proposed.

I listened to what Senator Cosgrove said about a Rwanda-style policy. That is not the intention of the Government but it is the case that there are countries that are safe. Georgia is a safe country. I am being careful about how I say this, but just because parts of a country may be unsafe does not mean that people from that country have an entitlement to come here and claim international protection. The benefit of a safe designation is that it speeds up the process. It expedites it. Everyone's application is still considered but it is done on an expedited basis. The Senator mentioned the persecution of gay people in Türkiye. Assessments have been done of Türkiye in terms of democracy, but it is not feasible for Ireland to say it has a responsibility to accept every gay person in Türkiye. That is just not feasible.

I noted what Senator Davitt said. Senator Higgins spoke about the benefits of migration. I agree with her about the benefits of migration but, again, I insist that we must have a controlled system. She was correct in identifying that conflict has caused migration, but look at the reason there has been the greatest level of migration to Ireland in recent years on the basis of asylum. It is Russian aggression in Ukraine. As a result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, 116,000 people have arrived from Ukraine. I think the number is now below 90,000. That is what triggered that. The Senator also mentioned climate change and was critical of the safe countries concept. I recognise the responsibility that I and the Irish State have when it comes to considering asylum applications.We are very liberal and fair when we are looked at in a European context and we do take into account the rights of the applicant, but there is a balance to this. As well as taking into account the rights of the applicant, we have to take into account the rights of the State and its right to be entitled to have a controlled migration system.

Senator Higgins also spoke about deportation flights. The reason we have deportation flights is because it is in the public interest to have them. It reveals that we have a controlled migration and immigration system. If we have a system where no matter who comes in, whether they succeed or fail in their application to stay, we say that it does not matter and they can all stay, why are we spending billions on a system for the IPO, IPAS and accommodation? We might as well just say that everyone can stay. It is about the public interest and having a controlled migration system. I am trying to do it in as humane a way as possible but I am not going to abandon my responsibilities simply because there are parts of the job that are probably unpleasant.

With regard to the removal of the return measure, the reason that is being done is because there are further discussions in respect of it. We will have ultimate control on whether we decide to opt into it. As I said, we will be back in respect of an Article 4 opt-in.

Senator Ryan talked about how we are ceding power to the EU. That is not correct. One thing that is apparent from recent history is that when you look at the UK, they left the European Union on the basis that they thought that, by leaving the EU, they would be able to resolve what was predominantly an immigration issue they faced. They have not. Their issues in respect of immigration have become considerably worse since they left. That is why it is important there is a broad and harmonised European response.

I note what Senator Keogan said as well with regard to what is needed in terms of border control. It is correct to say that very many people claiming international protection are coming in across the Border with Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the policy advanced by Aontú is not achievable. I cannot, nor can any Minister, Tánaiste, Taoiseach or anyone in this Government, achieve an Irish Sea border when it comes to this issue. It may be something for the future but we cannot achieve it now.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Seanad 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 Seanad Éireann on 13th June, 2025.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Seanad 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 Seanad Éireann on 26th June, 2025.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before I put the question, I welcome guests of Deputy Eoghan Kenny from the Mallow Women for Women group of Mallow, County Cork. They are most welcome to Seanad Éireann. I thank them for saying hello.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to sit again?

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Next Tuesday at 2.30 p.m.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.