Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome to the House a group from Carrigallen, who are guests of Deputy Eamon Scanlon. They are very welcome. I hope the Deputy looks after them for the rest of the day. I ask them to be sure to get a good drink out of him before they leave.

I welcome the Minister for Justice. The debate is now going to start in respect of proposed approval of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing Union support for internal security for the period from 2028 to 2034.

There is another motion regarding the proposed approval of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing Union support for asylum, migration and integration for the period from 2028 to 2034.

There is also a motion regarding the proposed approval of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the justice programme for the period 2028 to 2034 and repealing regulation EU 2021/693.

There is also a motion regarding the proposed approval of the recommendation for the Council's decision authorising the opening of negotiations for an agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea on the transfer of passenger name record data.All four motions will be debated together and decided on separately.

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: Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Union support for internal security for the period from 2028 to 2034, a copy of which was laid before Seanad Éireann on 14th August, 2025.

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

Like the Acting Chairman, I want to welcome the guests in the Gallery. I have to say that when I walked in, I thought I was appearing before a grand jury. I welcome them all. I wish them a successful day with Deputy Scanlon.

I thank the Acting Chairman and his colleagues for facilitating these motions. This morning, the Government approved my request to seek the approval of this House to opt in to these EU Commission proposals. These proposals form part of the multi-annual financial framework, sometimes referred to as the MFF, package. As the House will know, the MFF is the European Union's long-term budget plan that sets the annual spending limits for various policy areas over a seven-year period.

The proposals today relate to the asylum, migration and integration fund, the internal security fund and the justice programme fund. Ireland already participates in and draws down a lot of funding from these streams. The proposed regulations will cover the period 2028 to 2034. As instruments with a Title V legal base, Protocol 21 of the treaty applies and an opt-in under Article 3 is required in order for Ireland to continue utilising funding made available under the programmes.

On the proposals themselves, the proposed regulation for a new asylum fund provides for a total considerable amount of money in EU funding, which is significantly increased from what the fund was before. Funding can be drawn down to support member states' capacity to manage and respond to asylum, migration and integration challenges and will be available to support member states' implementation of the pact. In fact, the total amount that will be in the fund from the years 2028 to 2034 will be €11.9 billion, which is an increase on the €6.2 billion that was in the previous version of the fund. Ireland received €63.53 million from that fund during its last iteration. Ireland has participated in the previous two iterations of the fund and participated in the two comparable funds that preceded it, the European integration fund and the refugee fund. Under the current programme, the fund provides a range of supports for international protection applicants, beneficiaries of temporary protection and other third country nationals arriving in Ireland. This funding assistance also supports the State's ability to fund a wide range of NGO-led migrant integration programmes and covers certain aspects of the Irish refugee protection programme and the returns programme, both of which are managed by my Department.

Ireland has also benefited from participation in previous iterations of the EU internal security fund, ISF. The proposed regulation will establish a new internal security fund for 2028 to 2034 and provide an indicative amount of €6.8 billion, a significant increase on the €1.9 billion provided under the current internal security fund, which operates from 2021 to 2027. Internal security is high on the Union's agenda. In recent years, geopolitical instability has impacted greatly on the EU. The threat picture facing the EU is stark. Security threats are increasingly cross-border in nature, necessitating closer co-operation between member states. We also know that serious and organised crime, terrorism, radicalisation and violent extremism need to be combated at a Union level. As we know only too well, Ireland is not immune to this. The indicative increase for this fund reflects the priority afforded to protecting the Union's internal security and the need to keep it high on the agenda. The EU internal security fund is informed by ProtectEU, which is the Commission's new internal security strategy. I had the pleasure earlier this week of meeting the Commissioner for Internal Affairs and Migration, Magnus Brunner, when he visited Ireland. I know that the ProtectEU policy is a central theme of his Commissionership. The aims of ProtectEU can be achieved by enhancing operational law enforcement co-operation and the exchange of information between member states and relevant EU agencies.

Under this fund, grants may be drawn down for activities that include the development of national and EU-wide information systems, joint operations between cross-border and national authorities and training on new technologies and processes. Beneficiaries of the programmes implemented under the ISF may include national police, customs and other specialised law enforcement services, NGOs and local public bodies. Under the current internal security fund, Ireland has benefited from funding provided that has enabled investments in IT systems, including Ireland's connection to the Schengen information system, the establishment of Ireland's passenger information unit and the enhancement of the automatic number plate reading system in Garda vehicles. From the previous internal security fund, we got €21.8 million. Again, these are funds where there is a clear financial benefit as well as a substantive benefit to Ireland opting in.

The third motion listed for this debate is on the proposal to establish the justice programme fund. This proposal is also a continuation of previous iterations of the programme and intends to establish a fund of €798 million in total over seven years. Member states can draw down from the fund for projects that promote adherence to the rule of law and fundamental rights, support and improve access to justice and support judicial training and the proper funding of independent judicial systems. Some examples of Irish projects funded under this stream include a research project by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, to raise awareness of the application of the standards of the European Court of Human Rights, ECHR, in day-to-day decision-making on flight risk as the ground for pretrial detention, a Law Society project to increase knowledge in key areas of EU law for EU lawyers who would be able to give better advice to European citizens and businesses, and a Tusla-led project to improve access to child-friendly justice. We really need entities to be aware that this fund is available and that they can make applications to it if they come within the justice portfolio. The European Judicial Training Network, of which the Judicial Council of Ireland is a member, is also funded under the justice programme. This network brings together judicial training institutions from around Europe to develop and implement training for the judiciary. It is important that Ireland continue to support the work of this independent training institute.

In respect of all those three opt-ins I am proposing, I want the House to know that from a procedural point of view, opting in to these measures at an early stage will allow Ireland to maximise our influence on the final shape of these proposals. This is why I am proposing an opt-in under Article 3.

I will now deal with the separate motion regarding participation in the passenger name record, PNR, data agreements between the European Union and the Republic of Korea, for which I am seeking the approval of Seanad Éireann. This is a Council decision with a Title V legal basis. It is in the area of police and co-operation. That is why we need to opt in to it and why I am here seeking the approval of this House. The collection and analysis of PNR data is a widely used law enforcement tool in the EU and in other countries for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime. PNR data is the booking information provided by passengers and collected by air carriers for their own commercial purposes, such as names and dates of travel or travel itineraries. It can provide the authorities with important elements allowing them to detect suspicious travel patterns and to identify associates of criminals and terrorists, particularly those previously unknown to law enforcement agencies. The use of PNR data is governed by the EU PNR directive, which has been transposed into national law. The Irish passenger information unit within my own Department is the body responsible for processing PNR. Today, I am simply asking Senators to support and opt in to those negotiations so that we can participate on the same basis as other EU member states. We will not be bound into participation in the finalised agreement with the Republic of Korea unless we exercise our right to opt in again when fresh proposals are published at the end of the negotiations. I think it is desirable that Ireland exercise an Article 3 opt-in to this proposal with the Republic of Korea so that we can fully participate in the negotiations as they progress.

I commend the motions to the House. I thank Senators for listening to me and I appreciate the speed with which Seanad Éireann has been able to put these opt-ins on its agenda considering that in respect to the first three of them, I only got Government approval about three hours ago.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are highly efficient in this House.

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

Yes.

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

Extremely.

Eileen Lynch (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister and thank him for being with us today. It is vital that we were discussing the proposed approval of these three European Commission proposals to which our Protocol 21 opt-in applies. As the Minister already noted, these proposals are a vital part of the MFF budgetary package on which negotiations are ongoing and will be for the foreseeable future. These motions will form part of Ireland's engagement with key EU justice and security programmes for the period 2028 to 2034. They relate to four distinct but interconnected areas. I ask the House to support Ireland's opt-in to the regulation establishing the internal security fund for 2028 to 2034 with a value of €6.8 billion. This fund is central to strengthening security across the European Union. It provides targeted investment in combating terrorism and radicalisation, tackling organised crime, improving cybersecurity and enhancing co-operation between law enforcement agencies.

In recent years, Ireland has faced increased challenges in areas such as cyberthreats, trafficking networks and cross-border criminal activity. Participation in this fund will ensure An Garda Síochána and other agencies can access modern technologies, training and intelligence-sharing networks that no single country could effectively develop alone. It will also facilitate the exchange of information between competent authorities and EU bodies throughout the European Union. I believe that opting into this regulation is not in any way to surrender sovereignty. Rather, it is Ireland choosing to work with its partners in a way that makes citizens safer and strengthens our institutions.

The second motion concerns the asylum migration and integration fund, known as AMIF. This fund supports member states in managing migration in a humane, orderly and respectful manner. This is very topical at the moment, not just here but right across the Union. We have to acknowledge that Ireland is a country built on migration, both outwards and inwards. We know what it is to seek opportunity elsewhere. We also know the responsibilities that come with welcoming people who arrive in our country today. By opting into AMIF for the next programme cycle, Ireland can draw on EU resources to improve our asylum system, support reception facilities, assist integration efforts and ensure that vulnerable migrants receive the supports they require. It is important to note that this fund helps member states to return individuals who do not qualify for protection in a manner consistent with international law and European values. It balances firmness with compassion, ensures both fairness to genuine applicants and integrity of the system as a whole. Co-ordination across Europe is essential in this area. Migration pressures do not recognise borders and our responses cannot be purely national. We need to respond as a Union as this is an issue for most, if not all, EU countries. This opt-in reflects Ireland's ongoing commitment to responsibility sharing and to uphold our obligations in this regard.

The third motion proposes Ireland's participation in the justice programme, again from 2028 to 2034. This programme strengthens judicial co-operation across the Union. It supports training for judges and legal practitioners, improves access to justice for citizens and promotes mutual recognition of judicial decisions. It is important for a small country such as Ireland to have access to these networks and resources. Crime, commercial disputes, family law cases and digital evidence increasingly cross national boundaries. Participation in the justice programme ensures that our legal system remains aligned with best European practice and that our citizens benefit from clear, fair and efficient cross-border processes. It also reinforces the rule of law, an area where Ireland has consistently been a strong voice in the Union. By opting in, we affirm that justice co-operation is not optional. It is core to the functioning of the European project and to the protection of Irish citizens both at home and abroad. We have seen in recent years disrespect towards the rule of law in certain countries and by certain governments, but it is vital that it remains a core principle of the Union and the way in which it functions. I am delighted to highlight how strong Ireland has been in regard to respect for the rule of law.

On a separate note, not linked to Protocol 21, we are asked to approve Ireland's opt-in to a Council decision opening negotiations with the Republic of Korea for a passenger name record, PNR, agreement. Passenger name record data has become a vital tool in combating serious crime and terrorism. It allows authorities to identify high-risk travel patterns while applying strict data protection safeguards. South Korea is a major economic and travel partner of the EU. Establishing a PNR agreement ensures that data exchanges between EU member states and Korea occur within a structured framework that protects privacy while enabling effective law enforcement co-operation. By opting in, Ireland ensures that our national authorities remain fully engaged in shaping that agreement from the outset, rather than at a later date accepting terms which have been set by others. It is both a proactive and responsible course of action.

The motions before the House today reflect Ireland's ongoing commitment to a Europe that is secure, just and fair. They strengthen our capacity to respond to emerging security threats, to manage migration responsibly, to uphold the rule of law and to engage effectively with our international partners. These opt-ins affect the safety of our communities, the fairness of our legal system, the integrity of our borders and, most importantly, the confidence of our citizens in how we manage change and their confidence in the European Union itself. For these reasons I strongly commend the motions to the House.

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

I welcome the Minister to the House again. He is probably the most active Minister for justice we have seen over the past five years, since I was elected to the House. I wish him well, always, in the work he does. He plays a major role in how our society is going forward.

Today we have been asked to rubber=stamp Ireland's opt-in to two major EU programmes, the internal security fund and the asylum migration and integration fund, for the period 2028 to 2034. On the surface, these sound sensible. There is money on the table. Who would not want extra funding for our underfunded security infrastructure or for migration and border control infrastructure? However, let us call it what it is: cash for sovereignty. Every time we sign up to these schemes, we are not just taking money, we are handing over control. Opting in to the AMIF means binding ourselves to the EU migration pact with its mandatory solidarity mechanism. That means Brussels decides the rules and Ireland either takes relocated migrants or pays €20,000 per head for refusing. Is that sovereignty or is that a cheque with strings attached?

Look at Poland. Donald Tusk has clearly said that Poland will not implement any migration pact that forces it to accept migrants. That is a sovereign stance. The Netherlands and 14 other countries have signed letters demanding tougher rules and external processing. They are pushing back. Meanwhile, in Ireland we nod along, sign up and hope for a few crumbs from the EU table.

Let us talk about the internal security fund. Yes, opting in means more money for cybersecurity and for Garda resources, but again it is our own money coming back with conditions. Those conditions matter to the Irish people. They tie Ireland into the EU security strategies and operational frameworks. That is a slippery slope for a country that values neutrality. Today it is data sharing and infrastructure protection. Tomorrow, it could be deeper integration into EU security and defence policy. We need to ask, where does this end? Are we comfortable with Brussels shaping our policy priorities and, by extension, our security posture? Yes, we might lose some funding in the short term if we opt out. However, Ireland is a net contributor to the EU budget. We pay more in than we get out. Opting in does not change that, it just means we pay in and then beg for some of our own money back, with conditions attached.

If we are serious about sovereignty, we should opt out of the migration pact entirely and stop this precedent of surrendering control for cash. Instead of meekly signing up, the Government should be throwing its weight around Brussels and demanding a rebate for opt-outs at the next MFF negotiations. Other countries have rebates and we, too, should be negotiating a better deal for what we pay in and setting a precedent that Ireland will defend its sovereignty.For clarity, I do not oppose the approval of the opt-ins to a justice programme, nor to negotiations with the Republic of Korea, but I am calling on this House to vote against the first two motions, on the internal security fund and the asylum, migration and integration fund, because these represent a dangerous trade-off, sovereignty for short-term cash. This is about principle. Do we want to govern ourselves or do we want to be governed by press releases from Brussels? I say stop trading sovereignty for short-term cash. Opt out, stand firm and start using Ireland's position to get a fairer deal for all of our people.

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

I welcome the Minister back to the Chamber this afternoon. I compliment him and acknowledge the great energy he has taken to his new role and the progress he has made across a large number of areas. I ask him to continue the good work.

From a Fianna Fáil perspective, we are happy to support the measures outlined here this afternoon by the Minister. It is important, whether it be security or migration, to have an EU approach as they are global issues. We need an EU approach to try to deal with whatever it may be, whether it is security or migration. We only have to look across to our nearest neighbour, the UK, which decided to go it alone, and we can see the issues it has to deal with now. Ultimately, it requires co-operation among all EU states to deal with security, migration or whatever. That is vital.

The funding is also vital. There is a substantial pool of moneys available under the new asylum fund. There is something like €11.9 billion, which is a huge amount of money and a big increase on the €6.2 billion that was there previously. That will go a long way to help co-operation, be that fingerprinting of applications, vetting or whatever. It is important that we have these systems in place. As John Donne, the poet, said once upon a time, "No man is an island", and on this particular issue, I firmly believe we cannot go alone. We will need the co-operation of our neighbours and our EU colleagues to have a proper system in place that can be fair but firm and efficient, which is vital.

The security element of it is something we have to be cognisant of because, unfortunately, there are threats on a daily basis, not just to us but to EU security. Co-operation is vital in that regard because crime does not know any borders. It is a global issue and we need the co-operation of our neighbours to have an adequate system in place to protect ourselves.

I am very happy, on behalf of the Fianna Fáil group, to support the proposals before us. I understand we need the assent of both the Seanad and the Dáil to opt in to them. On behalf of the Fianna Fáil group, I am happy to do that. I wish Deputy O'Callaghan well in his role as Minister.

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

I welcome the Minister back to the House. I welcome the opportunity to speak on these motions before the House. They relate to the proposed series of opt-ins under Protocol 21. Specifically, we are being asked to approve opt-ins for three major EU regulations: a regulation establishing a Union support for asylum, migration and integration for the period 2028 to 2034, and regulations establishing Union support for internal security and justice programmes for the same period. We are also being asked to consider a separate motion regarding Ireland's proposed opt-in to the EU-South Korea negotiations on the exchange of passenger name records.

These are important issues individually but they are interconnected in ways that go to the heart of sovereignty, democratic oversight and Ireland's capacity to make decisions that serve our national interests. Anytime this House is asked to approve an opt-in under Article 3 of Protocol 21, we must be clear about what that actually means. Under Article 3, Ireland may opt in within three months of a proposal being presented. If we do this, we participate in negotiations but we are bound by the outcome, which will be decided by a qualified majority vote. Ireland does not have a veto, even if the final outcome is contrary to our national interests.

In contrast, Article 4 allows Ireland to opt in after a proposal is adopted, when we have clarity about its implications and what safeguards exist. That safeguard exists for a reason. It is part of what secured Irish public support for the Lisbon treaty. There has been a drip-drip erosion of the safeguard, given the Government increasingly keeps choosing to opt in under Article 3 when there is no compelling need to do so. Each time this happens, we surrender a little more of our sovereignty in the area where the EU has no businesses acquiring additional powers, namely, migration, justice, policing and internal security. These motions must be viewed against the wider backdrop.

Sinn Féin has been clear and consistent. Much of the EU migration and asylum pact is not in Ireland's best interest. Ireland must retain sovereignty if we are to have an immigration system that is fair, efficient and enforceable. Our situation is unique. We are in the EU but we are not in the Schengen area and we share a common travel area with a state that is outside of the EU. That has real consequences for border management, flows of international protection applicants and the obligations the EU now seeks to place upon us.

Government officials have already acknowledged that the EU pact failed to consider the common travel area. They have also admitted there is no estimate of the costs Ireland may incur for non-compliance with the pact requirements. Sinn Féin has supported certain elements, especially the asylum and migration management regulation, AMMR, and Eurodac, because these serve Ireland's interests. However, we oppose the remainder and we continue to oppose any further transfer of powers that impedes Ireland's ability to make independent decisions in this area. These motions before us must be interpreted in a broader context. The AMIF supports a range of activities: the Irish refugee protection programme, the returns programme, reception supports, language provisions, anti-racism initiatives and lots more. It is also used to finance voluntarily returns and deportations. The Government has indicated that charter costs will be claimed under this fund. Crucially, the Minister has described the AMIF as underwriting the implementation of the EU migration pact. That is highly problematic. Opting in under Article 3 would amount to endorsing the pact's architecture, even if indirectly. It would bind Ireland to new structures and new obligations at a time when we lack clarity on how these impact the common travel area and Ireland's already strained system. Sinn Féin cannot support the Article 3 opt-in to the AMIF on that basis.

The international security fund is linked to the EU's new internal security strategy, ProtectEU. That strategy includes extremely worrying proposals on chat control and the weakening of encryption. The Irish Times and numerous digital rights experts have made clear that any attempt to weaken encryption weakens everyone's security. There has already been significant pushback from across Europe and these concerns are real, not hypothetical. Whatever benefits the ISF might contain, they cannot outweigh the risks associated with endorsing or facilitating measures that undermine personal privacy, data protection and cybersecurity. Therefore, Sinn Féin has serious concerns and cannot endorse the Article 3 opt-in here either. The justice programme system is the least contentious of the three. It supports judicial co-operation, training for practitioners and access to justice, issues we broadly support. However, the principle still applies. There is no urgent need to opt in under Article 3 and Ireland should not bind itself prematurely. Article 4 is the safer, more democratic route and there is no justification for bypassing that safeguard.

The PNR motion is distinct. It relates to operating negotiations with the Republic of Korea on the exchange of passenger name record data for the purposes of combating terrorism and serious crime. Sinn Féin has supported previous PNR agreements with Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and other countries because the sharing of PNR data is a necessary and proportionate tool in tackling organised crime, trafficking and terrorism. We also support the emphasis on ensuring PNR data is handled in a way that is necessary, proportionate, limited and rights compliant. Therefore, we support this motion, while reiterating our concerns about the growing tendency to use Article 3 to opt in as a matter of routine. Protocol 21 exists in protection of Irish sovereignty. We should not dilute it. It is also worth noting a policy anomaly. The PNR applies to air passengers but does not apply to ferry travel, despite Ireland's substantial sea border traffic. This loophole undermines the purpose of the PNR and must be addressed.

Sinn Féin opposes Article 3 opt-ins to the AMIF, the internal security fund and the justice programme. These motions represent yet another instance of handing over sovereignty without clear justification in areas where Ireland must retain decision-making powers. Sinn Féin supports an Article 3 opt-in for the PNR negotiations with South Korea, but we do so while emphasising the importance of Protocol 21 and ensuring Irish national interests, not EU convenience, guide every such decision.We will continue to defend Irish sovereignty, challenge the mission creep from Brussels and insist that Ireland, not the EU decides what is best for our best people.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before I call Senator O'Reilly, I welcome Senator McCarthy's guest from the Lithuanian chamber of commerce, Mr. Darius Kazakevicius. I also welcome the guests of the Minister of State, Deputy Canney. I hope they all have a good time.

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

I thank the Minister for coming in to debate this. I have serious concerns regarding the motions. The second motion asks the House to endorse a framework that has not yet been defined. We are effectively being asked to give consent for funding mechanisms that will only be agreed later for the 2028 to 2034 budget cycle. The Government is essentially asking us to vote blindly. EU Commissioner Magnus Brunner has stated that all EU states are under pressure from current migration demands, but there are 12 countries considered high risk due to the large number of arrivals and continuing tensions over the accommodation being provided. Ireland is one of those 12 countries. In 2026, asylum seekers in Spain, Italy, Greece and Cyprus will be relocated to other EU states. Poland, Hungary, Czechia and Slovakia are refusing to take in asylum seekers or contribute financially. If various members states receive exemptions, will the burden fall to us and other states to pick up the slack? Where is the Government's backbone on this? I was shocked that the EU migration Commissioner praised Citywest as an example of best practice. That is so disconnected from reality. To describe housing over 1,000 people in a hotel as best practice is troubling. It sets a dangerously low bar for standards and casts doubt on the assurances we are being given about the EU migration pact.

The first motion seeking Ireland's opt-in to the internal security fund is an alignment with the White Paper for European defence. There is a worrying shift towards increased militarisation across Europe. The Government may deny it, but Ursula von der Leyen has been clear in her objective to see a unified European military. She has previously said that her aim is to become the united states of Europe. Where would our sovereignty be then? Many asylum seekers are arriving into Europe because of global conflicts that are driving displacement. Our priority should be tackling this instability and corrupt governments at source, not funding increased militarisation and warmongering.

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

I have listened carefully to the debate. It is important and right that these issues are debated in this Chamber. I regret that so few of our colleagues have made their way to the Chamber to discuss this. Immigration is one of the biggest issues affecting the country at present after housing.

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

Hear, hear.

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

It is so important that voices from all sides are heard. Regrettably, here we are today with scarce attendance. On this issue, Ireland has to have a tough immigration system that recognises that there are vulnerable people who are coming from the most difficult circumstances who are justifiably recognised as having a successful asylum claim. It also must recognise the fact that there are people coming to the country under false pretences, perhaps with no documents, whose stories do not match what they are saying and who are successfully through the system process, rejected and then have to be deported. To ensure that we have a viable migration system in this country, we have to have resources. To suggest that it is possible for Ireland to go it alone does not reflect the realities of the situation.

It is important that if somebody applies for asylum in a different member state, Ireland's authorities in the Department of justice and An Garda Síochána understand that the person has put in an application with a different country and therefore should be returned to that country to have their application adjudicated upon there in the first instance. We cannot have a situation where people are able to lodge multiple asylum applications as they make their way across Europe and then subsequently come to Ireland to have a separate asylum application adjudicated upon here. It is also important that Ireland has access to fingerprint, arrest and criminal conviction records of people who have made their way to Ireland across Europe seeking asylum here. The only way we can have access to those two mechanisms is through a shared series of co-operation measures. That is what is proposed here. It is for those reasons and protecting the integrity of our asylum pact system in Ireland that I am supporting these measures.

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

I thank all the Senators for their contributions. Senator Byrne made a valid point. This is democracy in operation. Many Senators questioned whether we are giving away Irish sovereignty. This is the elected Upper House of the Irish people. We are debating proposals that have been put forward by the European Union. These Houses decide whether or not to go with those proposals. The Government decides whether to put them to these Houses for a vote or not. That is democracy in action. It shows that we are exercising sovereignty over matters that emanate from Europe. We do not have to support these. It is in our interest to do so. The different constitutional Houses of Oireachtas could reject them.

I thank Senator Lynch. I agree with her comments about the threats we are facing. It is a dangerous world out there at present in terms of the increasing threats and different nature of the threats.

I listened carefully to Senator Keogan about the migration pact and how we are giving up sovereignty. We have seen an example of an EU country that decided to go it alone. The United Kingdom decided to go it alone.

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

I know.

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

Its influence and power in the world have reduced since it left the European Union. Part of the reason the United Kingdom left the European Union was it wanted to assert more control over immigration and migration in its countries. It has not been able to do that. We need to be careful in recognising that. There are advantages to being part of a bigger bloc in the world at present. The world is breaking down into different power blocs. I heard somebody accurately describe it on the radio the other day. There was a bipolarity of power blocs during the Cold War. Then we had the hegemony of the United States. Now we are seeing different power blocs arising around the world, such as China, Russia and its allies, the European Union and the United States. Multilateralism seems to have broken down. We are better off being part of a large bloc, otherwise we would be completely forgotten. How long do I have left?

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister has as long as he likes.

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

Keep going.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Maybe I should not have said that.

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

I will not keep going on.

I disagree with the Senator. There are a lot of funds available for us to apply to. We are now a net contributor to the EU. Let us consider the benefits we get out of it as well. Our economy has been transformed from being a member of the Single Market and the EU. The reason all of these businesses are coming here is we have access to the EU. We do not want to find ourselves in a situation where we go back to the 1950s where we stood alone bravely but it was not a great time financially for our people.

I agree with what Senator Gallagher said about no man being an island. We have to be aligned with others. That is an important emphasis.

Senator Ryan raised the interesting the point about opting-in under Articles 3 or 4. There are advantages to either. The advantage of opting-in under Article 3 is that we have an opportunity to try to influence the negotiations for the package. If we go in under Article 4, we just get the package and that is it. We either vote for it or we do not. There are benefits in respect of both. Sometimes an Article 4 opt-in may be preferable, but certainly here there is a big benefit in us going in under Article 3. Similarly, the Senator mentioned the migration pact. Deputy Carthy said we should not have opted-in to the migration pact. We have to follow through what the consequence of that is. If we did not opt in to the migration pact, we would still be bound by the regulations and directives from the earlier part of this century that dealt with international protection or refugee applications as they were described at that stage.Not opting into the migration pact does not solve anything for us, as the position of the UK shows. There is a real advantage in harmonising and speeding up asylum applications across the European Union. Come 12 June next, in the aftermath of that, we will see an efficiency in the system and how it operates.

Senator Ryan also mentioned the issue about the weakening of encryption. That is a very interesting point. There are a lot of people who object to the European Union and Magnus Brunner trying to introduce a directive that would permit access to encrypted messages. The main reason Commissioner Brunner wants this is that he is trying to get agreement on a child sexual abuse regulation. The Senator may know this but I am presuming she does not because it is an issue I discuss out in Europe. There is huge opposition to it coming from certain countries in the European Union and from certain privacy campaigners who say they do not want it because they say it will weaken encryption and it is an interference in their privacy. I know that the Senator and every other Member of this House see nothing wrong in seeking to access information if we are going to be able to use it for the purpose of removing child sexual abuse material.

I listened carefully to Senator Sarah O'Reilly. My understanding on the designation of Ireland is that we are presently at risk of migratory pressure. I hear what she said in respect of other EU countries. Whether we like it or not, immigration and forced movement of people is a very significant part of life in the beginning of the 21th century. People moving around the world is going to be one of the defining characteristics of the first half of the 21th century. The idea that we are just going to be able to establish a situation where nobody wants to come, is not going to happen. If we have crashed the economy and have a disastrous economy, nobody will want to come but in general people want to come into successful and wealthy countries. The policy I am trying to advance is that we have a rules-based system that is fair but firm. If people comply with the rules, they can come in. If they do not, they have to leave. Regarding Citywest, I know the Senator was disappointed with what Commissioner Brunner said about best practice. She said there was a dangerously low bar for standards. I have been out there and have seen the facilities in Citywest for people who are applying for asylum. It is a very generous response by the State. We are providing people with accommodation while processing their applications. It is a lot better than in other European countries.

Finally, I agree with Senator Byrne. It has been an interesting debate. We do not need big crowds here to have an interesting debate. I always enjoy my time in the Seanad. I will be writing a report card at the end of all the top performing Senators. I am pleased to see they are all here today, including Senator Boyhan.

Pat Casey (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome Senator Dee Ryan's son to the Gallery today. I hope his mother is looking after him well and that he enjoys the rest of the day.

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

I welcome Deputy John Paul O'Shea and his guests to the Gallery. I am sure they are from somewhere in Cork North-West. They are most welcome to Seanad Éireann.

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: Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Union support for asylum, migration and integration for the period from 2028 to 2034, a copy of which was laid before Seanad Éireann on 14th August, 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: Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Justice programme for the period 2028-2034 and repealing Regulation (EU) 2021/693,

a copy of which was laid before Seanad Éireann on 29th September, 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: Recommendation for a Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations for an agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Korea on the transfer of Passenger Name Record data from the European Union to the Republic of Korea for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime, a copy of which was laid before Seanad Éireann on 14th October, 2025.

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

I welcome Councillor Sarah Kiely from Limerick to the Gallery. She is most welcome here today.