2026-02-12

Before I speak about my approval of this Bill and give my thanks for the work done on it, I wish to make my position on immigration very clear. Having listened to various debates over the last number of days, sometimes it feels, as an outsider looking in, that the lines tend to get a little bit blurred when we talk about immigration and what immigration is. It is important to underline that our position is that immigration is welcome in Ireland. We welcome people of all shapes and sizes and from all corners of the Earth to come to Ireland to be part of our society because what they offer is invaluable. They offer a rich, cultural contribution and we would be very much the poorer were they not here. The purpose of this Bill has always been to align and put together a process that is fair to everyone and, above all, to those people who come to the country seeking asylum protection. Without a defined, rules-based process, people are left hanging on the edge, stressed, worried and in doubt. That is not fair. This Bill aims to produce a system that is fair so that, from the outset, they know, even before they come to the shores of this island, what exactly our rules are and what will qualify them to stay here and become part of our society. The word “fair” cannot be repeated enough when we talk about immigrants and asylum seekers. The set of rules that have been introduced are fair. The streamlining and the speeding-up of the process give everybody a sense of where they stand. They know that, when they come here, there will be a defined time to apply and receive a speedy response from the State with regard to their status. It will also allow them to prepare the next steps in their journey if they are not granted asylum. It is also fair to the children, parents and all of these people who are coming here because when they get here, if they are granted asylum, they will know what they can expect from the State. It is fair to people in the communities because they will know how this is being processed, rather than a wilderness in which they do not know who is coming, when and in what kind of numbers. This is a system that is firm, and that is to be accepted. We must have rules in order to have an efficient system. It is extremely reasonable and fair, both to the applicant and the people in the communities who are welcoming these applicants. We should never blur the lines when we talk about immigration. We are an open society. We operate an economy that is multinational and international. We need people with skill sets that, very often, we cannot provide ourselves. We offer a great, rich society to people coming here, but they can offer us even more in return. Not only can they teach us different cultures and ways of thinking, but they also bring skill sets into international companies that have to be respected. We have to learn from them. I broadly welcome this Bill. I thank the Minister, Deputy O’Callaghan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, for the work they have done. I am not going to criticise it in any shape or form. However, I am mindful that maybe at some stage we could give some consideration to those people who have been refused asylum but have a serious illness. Consideration should be given to the progress and medical avenues available to them. We should also always be considerate of those children who come to this State on their own and ensure that their best interests are always placed at the very centre of the discussion.

Ireland needs an international protection system that is fair, efficient and enforced. That means being fair to those coming here fleeing war and persecution. We have to respect and protect their dignity and provide clarity and timely decisions. It must always be fair to communities as well by providing resources and supports to them when additional people come. The system also has to be efficient. It has been accepted by the Government that the system has not been as efficient as it should be. We have not been managing migration or the efficiency of the system because we all know it still takes far too long for decisions to be made. That is not in anyone’s interests. It is not in the interests of the people who come here or the State that, in some instances, it can take years for an application for asylum to be processed. Everything that can be done to speed up that process is in everyone’s interests, most especially those of the State. Of course, it must be enforced. When we say the system has to be enforced, we have to stand by that. If it is the case that someone applies for asylum and is refused, there is an obligation on the State and the Minister to enforce that. I support that because it is the only way to ensure we have a rules-based system that works. I say that because in a lot of the discussion and debate on migration over the last number of years, there has been, in my view, a quick reach to label anyone who talks about managed migration as racist, and that is simply not the case. There are racists in Ireland. Sometimes, we see them on the streets. We see them on the extremes of politics but the vast majority of Irish people are decent and fair-minded people who want a fair, efficient and enforced system. Talking about these issues and wanting to see the system enforced makes perfect sense. It is what any state should do. Communities have also felt aggrieved because of poor decision-making and communication. We always hear about communities looking for a veto, but I have never experienced that. While I may have seen some instances where some individuals demand it, in most cases what communities want is better communication and fair treatment. For example, the Minister has acknowledged in recent times that using the only hotel in a community for international protection, when the community is saying alternative accommodation and options should be looked at, creates problems and tensions. If there is poor communication with communities about additional resources and supports, including for those people coming here who need to be supported, it raises tensions and creates problems. We always have to learn from mistakes that were made and improve. We cannot ignore people's lived reality. We must accept where they are at. We must accept what they see. As I said, people are fair-minded. They want a managed migration system. They want to support people who are fleeing war and persecution and are coming here to make a life. They support that, but they want the system to be managed. They also know the difference between people who come here seeking employment and people who come seeking international protection. There are instances in which people use the international protection system to come here as economic migrants. There are, of course, options available to people through work permits. That is what should be done. That is why we need a system that is enforced and that can make decisions quickly. What really upsets and challenges people is when they see situations where it takes three or four years, or longer, for a decision to be made. I know the Minister has looked to tighten up on that and to make the process much more efficient and quicker, and I accept that. I also believe that balance is essential. Humanity in order together must be the foundation of any migration policy. The primary issue I have with this Bill relates to what it is designed to do. It is about giving Irish sovereignty on migration to the European Union. Deputy Carthy has already set out Sinn Féin's position on this issue very clearly. The Bill legislates for the EU migration and asylum pact and replaces the International Protection Act 2015. It introduces new processes for screening and biometrics; application procedures, including age assessments; first-instance decisions and returns; decisions made by ministerial officers; a new appeals structure via the tribunal for asylum and returns appeals, TARA, with tight appeal timelines; expanded return and entry ban provisions; and an independent monitoring mechanism via a chief inspector for asylum border procedures. The problems in our current system are real. I spoke about some of them already and there are others. Fixing them does not require signing up wholesale to a pact that does not reflect Ireland's circumstances. Not every country is the same. Every country has different issues and problems. We must have flexibility and be nimble enough to respond to issues that happen in Ireland, which may be different from those in other countries and unique to us. Sinn Féin's position is clear: the majority of this pact is not in Ireland's interests. It undermines Irish sovereignty by handing over more power to the EU and limiting our ability to make decisions in an area that must remain responsive to Irish realities. Ireland is in the EU but is not in the Schengen area. We operate a common travel area with Britain, which is a state outside the European Union. These are crucial detriments to how migration flow works in Ireland, as the Minister knows. We should retain the flexibility to respond, including retaining the ability to legislate in a bilateral way, where necessary. We should not tie the hands of future Irish Governments to EU policy. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice recommended that the Government should reconsider opting into the majority of the pact. I take the view that where it suits us and where it is in Ireland's interests, there must, of course, be co-operation and there can be mutual arrangements and obligations. However, where it does not suit us, if it is possible for us to opt out we should do so if it is in the interests of this State. Unfortunately, the Government has ignored that recommendation, which is a serious failure of judgment and accountability. The same committee raised concerns that the State might not be able to meet the commitments it is making under the pact, which may result in failure-to-comply risks, infringement proceedings and heavy fines. We have seen that in other areas where targets are set. Everybody knows the targets are not going to be met and we end up having to pay fines because the targets that were set in the first place were unrealistic. I do not want to see us paying fines and chasing them in this situation, rather than putting in place proper rules, procedures and processes that have a real impact and better equip this State to operate the rules-based system that exists. The Government should not sign up to obligations that the State is not capable of delivering because it leads to more dysfunction and public mistrust. There are deep concerns about the impact on the civil legal aid scheme and Tusla, both of which are already stretched. If the Government expands legal and procedural obligations without resourcing these services the outcomes are predictable: more delay, more frustration and less fairness for applicants and wider communities. Sinn Féin supported the parts of the pact that are clearly in Ireland's interests. That is obviously the right thing to do. We support the asylum and migration management regulation, which determines responsibility and allows applications to be processed in the correct member state, supporting a fairer sharing of responsibility. That makes sense. We support participation in Eurodac to improve consistent access to appropriate biometric data to support vetting and checks. That makes sense to help tackle trafficking, which needs to be tackled, and to support returns, where appropriate. However, Sinn Féin is opposed to opting wholesale into all of the measures that reduce Ireland's sovereignty, control and flexibility. We also have serious concerns about whether deadlines for the pact can be met without undermining fairness and robust decision-making. The Minister has indicated proposed changes to restrict or delay family reunification. That is a distraction from the real problems, which are delay, backlog and a failure to enforce outcomes. That is where people see the problems and challenges in our migration system. They want the Minister to spend his energy to resolve those issues and resource the system to ensure quicker decision-making. We must deal with the delays and enforce outcomes much faster so we can avoid the unnecessary detentions that can develop if cases are not dealt with as quickly as they should be. Where protection is granted, integration must be real. Family reunification is part of integration, especially for parents and children. We have seen that play out in the United States and we certainly do not want anything like that in this State. Any policy must be sustainable, but must also be fair and humane. Public confidence depends on rules being followed at every stage. At every stage of the process, we need fair processing and protection, where justified. We have all agreed, or most of us in the Chamber have agreed, what that means, what is justified and what the rules are. Once we agree on the rules and have a rules-based system, enforcement is the most important part because in any situation, if you develop and put in place rules but then ignore or do not enforce them, you do not have rules at all. That will be exploited. It makes no sense to the communities who watch on and see it. They support fairness and efficiency but also want to see this State and the Minister doing more to ensure that the rules which we have agreed to put in place are enforced. Otherwise, public confidence is low. It has been low because our system is operating in crisis mode. We can see that in communities. We can see that in relation to how applicants who come here are treated. It is because there has been systemic Government failure for too long. Decisions and appeals take too long. Enforcement is inconsistent. Accommodation policy has been driven by private interests and profiteering rather than public planning. The reality is that we have made a small number of people very wealthy on the back of international protection accommodation. When communities see that, and particularly when they see vital amenities being used when they could point to alternatives in the communities, it creates upset, anger and challenges we do not need and would not have if we had better public planning and resourcing of accommodation in these areas. Transparency and accountability around contracts are essential. The approach to locating accommodation must be based on community capacity and service availability and not on who can profit the most and the fastest. We are calling on the Government to end planning exemptions for this type of accommodation, to access local services and to engage properly with communities. Ireland must support integration properly from the ground up through community-based supports. There must also be zero tolerance of racism. Everybody in this House should state that clearly because we have seen examples of it and it is wrong. As the health spokesperson for Sinn Féin, and as someone who has visited hospitals the length and breadth of this country, I am proud that people of so many different nationalities work in our health service. I ended up in the eye casualty department of a hospital a number of weeks ago. I was struck by the number of doctors from outside the country. They do wonderful and fantastic work, and without them, our health services would not work. There are challenges whereby people who want to work in our health service and train here cannot get into hospitals because of employment barriers. They are issues that need to be resolved. If we do not resolve those types of issue they will create tensions that are unnecessary. Some of the racism we have seen is obviously ugly and has to be faced down. The best way to do that is for us to agree what the rules are, put in place a system that is fair and efficient and then enforce it. If we do that, we will get the confidence of the vast majority in this State and that is what I want to do. I cannot support this Bill for the reasons I have outlined.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. Several of my colleagues have spoken on it over the last week or so. It is not an understatement to say migration, emigration and the policy that supports the area are complex issues. There is no doubt about that, but the policy we develop in here that finds its way into the legislation on our Statute Book cannot be done by simply appeasing the views of bar stoolers who get their news from Facebook. There is far too much of that in the reactive response we see to this issue. Having assessed the Bill I can only conclude much of what is provided for here is as driven by the politics of the day as it is by our requirements to legislate and comply with the EU pact and the framework we signed a short time ago. In his contribution on this Bill my colleague Deputy Ahern, a lawyer of long standing, said, "A faster, more efficient asylum process is a worthy aim". It absolutely is and would be something that could command the support of a large majority in this House but this Bill is not that. The legislation seems, as Deputy Ahern suggested, more concerned with limiting established and well-understood rights of asylum seekers in ways that are concerning and have been well ventilated by others in this Chamber. This Bill goes well beyond the obligations we have signed up to at EU level and this in itself is telling. What we would expect from the government of a proud liberal democracy – with a sophisticated economy in which our health, IT, financial services, pharma, tourism and care sectors depend on migrant workers – is an informed, evidence-based public campaign to challenge the myths and shibboleths that, when unchallenged, have contributed to members of the Indian community and other people who do not look like me, the Minister and most of us in this Chamber experiencing violence and hate. Instead of the responsible campaign and approach we in Labour have been advocating for some time, we get this Bill. We heard claims recently from the Tánaiste and others that there is some kind of campaign going on to silence him and anyone who might disagree with my position on this matter, or the positions of those of us who might describe ourselves as being on the left. This does not stack up. Hearing comments like that from somebody who has the largest forum in the country from which to pronounce is quite extraordinary. I do not intend to use up all the time available but I want to address a couple of issues that have been well ventilated but are worth reflecting on again. The measures in this Bill are, in the words of the Labour justice spokesperson, Deputy Kelly, "cruel". We all deal day in and day out with applications from family members of people who are here working in our health service, in our financial services system and across the economy who want and require their families here. If we are to seriously consider how we best integrate the new Irish then we unite them with their families and loved ones and we make this a welcoming and tolerant place for them. What is proposed in the legislation before us is far from that. I have received correspondence about the Bill, as lots of other Members have. I received some from a group in my area I work closely with. They are based in Dundalk and represent the interests of the LGBT+ community in the north east. They are concerned about the legislation and the requirements that will be placed on international protection applicants who are members of the LGBT+ community. Some LGBT+ applicants will find it difficult to make some of the declarations they will be required to make and may find it difficult to speak freely to people in authority because of their experiences in their home countries, which are not as tolerant as Ireland and do not have as progressive a legislative and social framework in terms of the LGBT+ community. These issues have been raised with me and we need to be very conscious of them. There are people fleeing persecution from countries around the world under threat of the death penalty and who have suffered all kinds of terrible experiences because of who they are. They come here because we are a welcoming and tolerant place for members of the LGBT+ community and we have shown that in our society. The Minister and Minister of State will be aware that two years ago this week the previous Government signed a contract to use all of the D Hotel in Drogheda to provide accommodation to international protection applicants. I wrote to both of them recently and raised this by way of parliamentary question to get their assessment of whether this contract will be renewed on expiry. It is due to expire this week, this month. About the time that contract was signed I worked very hard under extreme pressure with other colleagues in my community to ensure this decision and the response to it was managed effectively. It was managed well in our community in the way I would expect and the response was precisely what I would expect from the people of the great small city I am from, which I am proud to represent. We are a town that is synonymous with solidarity and we have shown that time and again. At this time two years ago when other parts of the country were frankly disgracing themselves, our flag and the essence of Irishness, the people I represent did not. We chose not because that is not who we are. We are people who show solidarity and people who show leadership. The decision taken two years ago removed more than half of Drogheda’s hotel bed stock at the stroke of a pen. It removed the largest full service hotel from the tourism landscape. An economic assessment done at the time suggested the cumulative loss to the local economy was about €22 million annually. This is not on those who need accommodation when they come here to have their applications assessed, who are coming here seeking safety and the shelter which is their entitlement. This is about the loss of a key piece of very critical local economic infrastructure. This or indeed any other hotel in the country is not an appropriate place for children or families and this place has been no exception. On countless occasions over the last two years, including working with Drogheda 4 All - a welcome group I helped support and establish some time ago to express solidarity and to work with new arrivals to our community - I have represented people and families who have been treated very badly in this place. I have made the reports and they are on record. I have engaged with officials. There is a lengthy list of issues with this place. As I said, the contract expires this month. This hotel has a track record. It is inappropriate. From the point of view of the needs of the local economy, the contract must not be renewed. It is as simple as that. The Government's promise at the time that this would be a two-year contract must be honoured. The commitment made by the owners that this would be a two-year contract and that the funds generated by the company would be reinvested in the hotel must also be honoured. The hotel must be returned to productive economic use locally. We need the State-run and State-supported expert services that we should have an entitlement to expect in this rich republic to support people who are seeking international protection who are, by definition, the most vulnerable in our society. We need that now. There is very little evidence of that happening at scale. When the Minister and Minister of State make their concluding addresses, it would be very much appreciated if they would place on the record their view in respect of the D Hotel. I corresponded with both on the matter. This is an issue of concern to the community I represent. I know the Minister and Minister of State are aware of that. Their guidance at this point, as the contract is about to expire, would be appreciated.

I thank all of the Deputies who contributed to the debate on the three days over which it has been held. I recognise that every Deputy who contributed made a point of emphasising that they want to acknowledge the important role played by migrants in our communities. It is commendable that every speaker did that. It is apparent that there is a very good understanding in the Chamber of the different types of immigration into Ireland. We discussed issues relating to international protection and asylum, as it is referred to, but there are other types of immigration, whether through the free movement provisions relating to workers in the European Union or the granting of work permits and visas that facilitate people who want to come here to work. It is unquestionably the case that asylum is more complicated from the point of view of the State than other types of immigration. Deputy Nash referred to issues in his constituency. There are issues in every other constituency. Referring to them indicates that asylum gives rise to challenges for the State and the public that do not arise if people come here, have accommodation available to them and do not need to be processed because that has been done in advance as a result of them receiving work permits. I will not have an opportunity to respond to every Deputy. I will refer to some of the broader themes of the debate. Sinn Féin Deputies consistently referred to the fact that we should not have entered into the migration pact and that it is not respectful of Irish sovereignty. They said that if Sinn Féin had been in government and controlled the Oireachtas, we would not have entered into the pact. Nonetheless, they said that they are supportive of two aspects of the pact, namely asylum and migration management and Eurodac. I disagree with what they said, as does Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, but I wish to advise my colleagues in Sinn Féin that we have a huge amount of leeway and capacity to put in place the domestic laws that we want to see apply in respect of asylum in Ireland. I ask Sinn Féin to move away from the myopic discussion about the pact and tell me and the Oireachtas what rules it would like to see operate in Ireland for our asylum laws. In effect, what we are seeking to do in the Bill is set out the rules that will apply in respect of individuals when they arrive in Ireland, how they will be processed, the legal requirement to ensure that their applications are determined in an expedited manner, how they will have the right to appeal and the rules that will apply in that regard. Rather than saying that it would not have entered into the pact, Sinn Féin needs to set out the rules it would like to see being applied, particularly as there is a huge amount of leeway available to Ireland when it comes to the application of our domestic laws. Deputy Gannon and others in his party referred to children. There was an emotive reference to the detention of children. It has to be pointed out that when it comes to the very limited circumstances where a child can be detained under the provisions of the Bill, that can only happen where it is in the best interests of the minor and safeguards the unaccompanied minor. It is not the case that we are trying to introduce some sort of detention scheme for children. This only arises in the context of section 2$ in circumstances where it is in the best interests of the minor. Another issue raised was that of family reunification. Obviously, our asylum laws and this Bill are very much moulded by the numbers of people applying. As stated previous, the numbers prior to Covid were small. I cannot ignore the fact that approximately 60,000 people have come to Ireland to apply for international protection since 2022. The Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and I have examined family reunification. As the House knows, it was proposed that we would have a requirement for a three-year waiting period. Having listened to the opposition and to our colleagues in our parties, we will alter that to a two-year period. We are doing that on the basis of what has been said, but also on the basis of the European Court of Human Rights, which in the case of MA v. Denmark clearly recognised that a two-year waiting period is permissible. I will deal with the issue of legal counsel on Report Stage. It is a complicated issue. We have done our best to reform the system as best we can in the interests of fairness for everyone.

I thank all Deputies for their contributions. I sit and listen and sometimes wonder if there is type of parallel world here. The purpose of the Bill brought forward by the Minister and me is to reform the IPAS system in order that we will have a firm, fair and effective system. I listened to Deputies one minute welcome that and the, particularly in the case of Sinn Féin, which is a bit ludicrous, stated for purely anti-EU ideological reasons that they could not agree to it. I remind Sinn Féin that we are part of the European Union. We are an integral part of it. We have the ability, as a sovereign state, to do what we need to do and we have the ability, working in conjunction with the European partners, to be able to develop and implement far more effective systems. That is the important part. If we pass the Bill, we will put in place something that most people in this House want, namely a system that will reduce the waiting time to 12 weeks. As a result, there will be a system that will be much fairer for applicants and for people already living in communities in Ireland because it will be less onerous due to the fact that people will be processed more quickly. It will answer the questions raised by the Deputy across the way about why and how we will get out of the situation which none of us want of having hotels around the country being used for IPAS. The Minister and I are quite clear. We want to move to a much more effective State-owned system which we believe is the best way to go. We are in government and do not have the luxury of standing up to complain. We recognise that we had a crisis whereby the numbers went so exponentially high that the State had to respond fast. The purpose of the response by the State was for humanitarian reasons, namely that we wanted to be able to offer people accommodation and shelter when they arrived so that we could process their claims. We now want to address the key issues around how we can do that in a much more effective way. We will not let ideology impact on us. I am going to respect what I believe are the genuinely held views of Irish people, regardless of whether they have the luxury of sitting in this seat or on a bar stool, when it comes to migration. The majority of Irish people want to see the type of system we are talking about, namely a firm, fair and effective rules-based system that enables people to come in and that grants them the right to remain in this country and contribute to it if they can make their case in that regard. If that does not happen, they will have to go. I do not think there is anything hard, wrong or in any way inappropriate about having that type of policy. That is what the Bill is about at heart. I echo what my colleague the Minister said. There are choices that have to be made and there are choices people will say are too harsh. I do not believe that. I believe it is a balance of fairness. What we are saying on family unification is really important. We are saying that if a person comes here and is granted the right to remain, not only does he or she have the right to look for family unification after a period of time, but must have the ability to sustain people coming into the country because we have to be reasonable in terms of what this country can actually do. We need to make sure there is a balance between people being able to reunify with their family and the costs involved in that to the State. It is not something we can ignore or pretend to wish away. It is a real choice and cost. We are determined to strike what we believe is the correct balance around fairness in that. We believe a two-year period in allowing for family reunification and someone being able to clearly show they can support and sustain people coming into the country to join them is not only fair to the person wishing to do so but to the Irish communities and the people who are living here. I thank all of the Deputies for their contributions. It has been very informative to listen to so many views in relation to this. I look forward to continuing to work with the Minister, Deputy O'Callaghan, on it.

In accordance with Standing Order 85(2), the division is postponed until the weekly division time on Wednesday, 18 February 2026.