Jim O'Callaghan
Dublin Bay South · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“This relates to section 69 of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, which amends Schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to add the Courts Service to the Schedule.”
“The first four amendments in this group are minor drafting corrections. They corrected the wording in four places so that the Bill reads consistently. It is changing the word "references" to "a reference". They make no change to the substance or effect of the Bill.”
“The ARP scheme was introduced in July 2022 to recognise the generosity of members of the public who opened their houses, whether in their entirety or through the provision of a room, at their own expense to provide shelter to people displaced by the Ukraine war. The Department of Social Protection administers the scheme on my behalf.”
“I have no doubt it will be challenged, and I have to be able to convince a court, if it is being challenged, that this legislation weighs up conflicting interests and recognises there is a mechanism for somebody who has reformed himself to get off the register.”
“The scheme has been a lifeline for people from Ukraine displaced by the conflict, given high rental market rates and scarcity of rental accommodation.”
“I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the first instance for presiding over these Stages of the legislation. I am very pleased that this legislation has been enacted. I want to thank a few people very briefly. I thank Deputy McAuliffe for introducing me to Jason Poole. I thank Senator O'Loughlin for her work on this issue in the Seanad.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,181 lines we hold for Jim O'Callaghan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 67 of 84.
“I am conscious of the task the Deputy faces, as Cathaoirleach of the current justice committee, with the International Protection Bill. There was a similar task when the GDPR came before that committee for the purposes of pre-legislative scrutiny and Committee Stage. In fairness, understanding human frailty, things can be missed. I do not think it was a deliberate miss or anything like that. To answer the Deputy's question, I am confident that the regulations address the issue of the legal blanket exemption. The regulations are proportionate and necessary. I do not believe I will be back again seeking to add further regulations in that regard. The Deputy also asked what is the timeframe for the two statutory bodies and the one constitutional body to have these policies in place.”
“I thank Deputies Carthy and Gannon for their contributions. Deputy Carthy was correct in stating that these regulations are not seeking in any way to restrict the rights of a data subject. In fact, they are seeking to add protection to the rights of a data subject by ensuring that the three agencies that are the subject matter of the regulations act only where necessary and in a proportionate way when they are seeking to restrict access. I welcome the fact that both Deputies are supportive of the new regulations. Deputy Carthy also wondered why it was not fully transposed when the GDPR was being enacted in the Data Protection Act. I was a member of the justice committee at that stage. It was an enormous task.”
“I believe the regulations are necessary because they are proportionate and required for the purpose of ensuring there is compliance with the GDPR.”
“These draft regulations put in place procedural obligations on the Data Protection Commission, the Office of the Information Commissioner and the Comptroller and Auditor General when seeking to restrict the rights or obligations necessary to safeguard the performance of a function of the body concerned. They do not introduce any new or additional restrictions on the rights of data subjects. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure our national measures better align with the intent of Article 23 of the GDPR and that clear procedures are in place, governing the limited circumstances in which rights or obligations are restricted under section 60(3)(c). I am seeking the House's approval for the regulations drafted in respect of the three entities.”
“In addition, each of the bodies is required to prepare and implement policies and procedures that set out how they will deal with important issues such as data storage, security and access arrangements. Additionally, the bodies must periodically review the policies and procedures they have in place. Each regulation provides that any communication between the body and a data subject must be in an easily accessible form and be in plain language. My Department engaged with the three entities during the drafting process and they have confirmed that they are satisfied with the draft regulations. I take this opportunity to thank the three bodies involved for their constructive engagement throughout the preparation of the regulations.”
“The draft regulations before the House today are procedural in nature and seek to build upon the requirements set out in the regulations made last year, and are the second and final in the collection of regulations to address the Commission’s concerns. Specifically, the regulations require the Data Protection Commission, the Office of the Information Commissioner and the Comptroller and Auditor General to ensure that when restrictions are being applied under section 60(3)(c) for the performance of their functions, those restrictions are only in place for so long as is necessary and proportionate to safeguard the relevant function; and that relevant information about the restrictions is provided to the data subject, including the reason, except where disclosure would prejudice the body in the performance of its function.”
“This includes the extent to which the exercise of a right or compliance with an obligation would prejudice the performance of a function of the body including by disclosing that a particular function was being performed where it may prejudice the performance of the function concerned, or prevent the processing of personal data for a period of time where any delay may prejudice the performance of a function. In addition, the bodies concerned must have regard to the essence of the right to data protection of a data subject and the risks to the rights and freedoms of a data subject that may result from such a restriction.”
“First, regulations under section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 were made in November 2024 to amend section 60(3)(c) to clarify that the restrictions applied by the Data Protection Commission, the Office of the Information Commissioner and the Comptroller and Auditor General, as the case may be, must be necessary and proportionate to safeguard the performance of a function of the body concerned. The updated provisions also outlined the matters each body must have regard to when determining whether a restriction would be necessary and proportionate.”
“The European Commission contacted my Department and expressed concern about how section 60(3)(c) of the Data Protection Act had been drafted and that it could be interpreted as providing a blanket exemption to the entities concerned by not expressly requiring an assessment of the necessity and proportionality of restricting rights and obligations on a case-by-case basis, as required by the GDPR and, in particular, by Article 23. As an EU regulation, the GDPR is directly applicable in Irish law and section 60(3)(c) must be viewed in the context of Article 23 and operated at all times in keeping with its requirements. However, we recognised that the drafting of that section could be more explicit with respect to the requirements of the GDPR. To address this, two sets of regulations were prepared.”
“This includes rights of access to personal data, the right to erasure and the right to rectification. While section 60 provides for a collection of matters including Cabinet confidentiality and parliamentary privilege, these regulations are specifically concerned with section 60(3)(c) of the Act. That provision provides that the rights and obligations under Articles 12 to 22, inclusive, Article 34 and part of Article 5 of the GDPR are restricted to the extent that the personal data concerned are kept by the Data Protection Commission, the Office of the Information Commissioner and the Comptroller and Auditor General in the performance of their functions.”
“Where a Member State provides for further restrictions, the following conditions, which are strict, apply: first, the restrictions must be set out national law; second, they must respect the essence of the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals; and third, they must be necessary and proportionate to safeguard certain objectives of societal or general public interest. In Ireland, section 60 of the Data Protection Act gives further effect to Article 23 of the GDPR and provides for restrictions on obligations of controllers and rights of data subjects for important objectives of general public interest. The rights and obligations concerned are those provided for by Articles 12 to 22, inclusive, Article 34 and part of Article 5 of the GDPR.”
“Where potential issues are brought to our attention regarding our national transposing measures, we are happy to examine the issues and act where necessary, as we are doing in this instance. While the GDPR provides strong levels of protection for individuals, the right to data protection is not absolute and it must be balanced against other rights and interests. In this regard, the GDPR recognises that there may be limited circumstances in which an organisation could have grounds to refuse to grant an individual’s request to exercise their data protection rights.”
“The regulations are being made to address concern raised by the EU Commission that section 60(3)(c) of the Data Protection Act 2018 could be interpreted as providing a blanket exemption for the Data Protection Commission, the Office of the Information Commissioner and the Comptroller and Auditor General when restricting certain rights in the performance of their functions, on the basis that it did not expressly require consideration of necessity and proportionality on a case-by-case basis. The regulations seek to address that concern. This Government is committed to maintaining strong data protection rights for citizens in line with the general data protection regulation, GDPR.”
“The regulations before us are identical save that they refer to different public bodies, whether it be the Data Protection Commission, the Office of the Information Commissioner or the Comptroller and Auditor General. Section 60(4) of the Data Protection Act permits the making of regulations prescribing requirements to be complied with when the rights of data subjects and obligations of data controllers, referred to in section 60 of the Act, are restricted.”
“I move: That Dáil Éireann approves the following Regulations in draft: Data Protection Act 2018 (Section 60(4)) (Data Protection Commission) Regulations 2025; Data Protection Act 2018 (Section 60(4)) (Information Commissioner) Regulations 2025; and Data Protection Act 2018 (Section 60(4)) (Comptroller and Auditor General) Regulations 2025; copies of which were laid in draft before Dáil Éireann on 2nd July, 2025. I am seeking the House’s approval of regulations made, drafted and signed by me under section 60(4) of the Data Protection Act 2018. These regulations I have signed are in respect of three statutory bodies: the Data Protection Commission, the Office of the Information Commissioner and the Comptroller and Auditor General. In fact, the last body is a constitutional officeholder as opposed to a statutory body.”
“It is important to point out that there is no suggestion of any abolition of juries in the context of criminal prosecutions. In the Circuit Court for a defamation claim, people do not have a jury there. If you want to take a claim, you can take it in the Circuit Court. You can claim damages of up to €75,000. You do not get a jury, but you get a fair hearing from a judge. Senator Fitzpatrick spoke about small retailers and the retail crime form. I am very conscious of the issue and how it affects retailers, and that is why this statutory provision is contained within the Bill. I thank the Cathaoirleach for listening to me and Members for their contributions, which I will take on board. I will be back on Committee Stage.”
“I listened carefully to Senator Flatley; sorry, I mean Senator Flaherty. I apologise for confusing him with the famous Irish dancer. I listened carefully to Senator Flaherty. Having the experience of being in the newspaper industry is beneficial here. I can understand why newspapers feel the defamation laws need to be shifted more in order to protect the right to publication. Again, as I said, it is a balancing act. I agree that the new provision in respect of protecting retailers is a strong statutory defence, and I hope it is used. Senator Joe Conway gave an account of living in Cherryfield Avenue - a very pleasant avenue. I was never aware of Mr. Justice Wine but it sounds like an interesting account of him. He talked about trial by juries.”
“Of course, there are limits to that as well. It has consequences. The Senator’s allegation that I have a conflict of interest here is not only defamatory; it is incorrect and inaccurate. It has given me good insight into her as a Senator, and I will reflect on that in due course. I will take on board what Senator Craughwell said. He referred to many parts of the ISME speech and I listened to it very carefully. In respect of the transient retail defamation case, that may have been removed but it has nothing to do with me. We all need to be conscious of the broader public interest, let alone just focusing on representative vested interest groups that come here and ask us to speak on their behalf. It is important that we speak on their behalf but we also must have the broader public interest at large.”
“I think of the position of former Sergeant Maurice McCabe, where outrageous allegations were made against him. The only remedy he had in law, outside of the contract of employment dispute he may have had with the Garda, was a defamation claim. People were asking what can be done about this. When people say heinous things that are inaccurate and very damaging about individuals, they certainly should have a remedy. Not always can everybody have a remedy because there are some defences there. I am conscious that Senator Keogan defamed me in her speech. I have no remedy against that, nor would I wish to take it, because I think politicians should have a thick skin. However, one of the great privileges that Senators and Deputies have is the defence of absolute privilege. We can say what we wish here.”
“Senator Keogan read out what ISME had stated. It is important that we are discussing in this House the issue of the defamation Bill. As I said at the outset, we have to take into account conflicting rights. On one hand, there is the right of the individual to their good name and, on the other, there is the right to freedom of expression. Notwithstanding the background to how any of us get elected into politics, we have to represent what is perceived as being the public good. It is certainly the case that many people believe they have been grievously defamed by people. We do not actually hear too much about those individuals who have been defamed and believe they have to rely on the defamation laws because they are not an organised entity. They are not like ISME or the NUJ. Senator McDowell will be well aware of this.”
“Senator Stephenson said that I had previously in the Dáil supported retaining juries in defamation cases. That is correct. I described it as short-sighted. She asked what has changed. What has changed is now I am a member of the Government and I have to abide by and comply with the agreed position of the two parties and Independents that went into government and agreed the programme for Government. When you are in government, or when you are in a political party, as Members of this House will know, you have to compromise. Compromise is an essential part of government. Senator Noonan also referred to the issue of the SLAPP directive not being fully transposed. I will say the same thing to him: it is a defamation Bill, and I will be bringing forward further legislation to transpose the rest of the SLAPP directive.”
“She also criticised the fact that the Bill does not transpose other aspects of the SLAPP directive into Irish law. That will be done. Let us remember that this is a defamation Bill. It is appropriate that we just transpose into the defamation Bill those aspects of the SLAPP directive that relate to defamation. I also heard her talk about the Higgins case. The Higgins case is about setting out what awards of damages in defamation cases should be, regardless of whether it is a judge or a jury making the determination. The important thing about the Higgins case is that it will stand when or if we see the abolition of juries. I have also listened very carefully to what retired judge Mr. Justice Bernard Barton has said in respect of this matter.”
“I think it was mentioned by the Senator as well that the general scheme changed, and the transient retail defamation case was addressed in the general scheme. That was before the Bill was introduced in August of last year. I had nothing to do with that. I was not in government at the time. I got a Bill that was introduced by my predecessor, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, and approved by the Government. I have made no changes in the scheme since it was introduced. I note what Senator Ryan said in respect of juries. I listened carefully in the Lower House when Deputy Carthy was making a point about juries. I will deal with the juries point in due course when I respond to Senator Stephenson’s point where she mentioned statements I have made previously. Senator Stephenson said this is a missed opportunity.”
“It is in response, in fairness to many Members in this House and the Lower House, to the campaign that is being waged to ensure we can change our law. It will mean that if a retailer in a shop questions somebody as to whether that person has paid for something, or asks somebody whether they can check something, that will be protected. If a case is taken against a retailer, I would urge retailers to defend the claim. What encourages unmeritorious claims, as I said before, is when people decide, “Ah sure, we will just pay out a small sum of money”. I note what the Senator stated about the excess but there is a mechanism whereby the client in an insurance-client relationship can put pressure on the insurer to fight the claim. Insurers should be fighting claims as well.”
“That will be a hearing in advance of the full hearing. They have this in England and it has made it a more complicated area. There are some advantages in defamation laws at present in this country in that there is a resolution by the hearing of it in front of a jury, or in front of a judge if it is in the Circuit Court, and there is a quick determination. I do not want to make it so complicated that we have the serious harm test hearing, then we have appeal of that, it goes back, and then we have the full hearing. I note what was said but I would be concerned about it. Senator Nelson Murray referred to how defamation is a huge concern for retailers. I am aware of that. A number of colleagues have raised that issue as well. However, the new statutory provision has been put in to meet the concern of retailers.”
“The Senator is correct that it will make the issue more litigious. I also note what Senator McDowell said about section 26. It was introduced to give statutory effect to the Reynolds decision. That has happened but it needs to be simplified. Senator Kelleher mentioned the issue about the serious harm test, which is a legitimate point that was raised by Senators Kelleher and McDowell. My concern about having a serious harm test for every claimant who brings a defamation case is that there will inevitably be interlocutory hearings to determine whether the case is a serious harm case. It will lengthen proceedings. If somebody issues proceedings claiming they have been defamed, and if the defendant puts in a defence stating that it does not meet the serious harm test, there has to be a hearing about it.”
“It is certainly the case that there will be changes as a result of the fact that defamation cases will now be heard by judges sitting alone. It will mean that we will now generate and develop a body of jurisprudence through written reported judgments that will refer to defamation cases and how they have been decided. At present, one will not find any reported judgments about first instance defamation cases because when they are heard in the High Court, they are determined by a jury, an award is given and there is no written outcome from the court. The only time there is a written judgment is if a case is appealed and the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court gives its judgment in respect of it. Therefore, there will be considerably more defamation law and jurisprudence in the area.”
“Gabhaim buíochas le gach Seanadóir as a gcuid óráidí spéisiúla. I thank the Senators for their contributions. I thank Senator Gallagher for indicating his and Fianna Fáil's support for the legislation before the House. I then listened very carefully to Senator McDowell, who has great experience in this area, having been the Minister that steered through the Defamation Bill that became the 2009 Act. I assure Senator McDowell that I would never accuse him of having any conflict of interest in respect of how he steered the legislation through the Houses at that time, notwithstanding the fact that he was previously and subsequently a senior counsel. I also note what Senator McDowell said about how the media may come to regret the change to a judge sitting alone.”
“I apologise that I will not be here to make the closing remarks, because I have to attend another meeting that I think is commencing at 2.30 p.m. or maybe a bit later, so I will have to leave before the end of their contributions. I ask Senators to give careful consideration to the Bill.”
“One person's SLAPP is another person's constitutional right to respect his or her good name. The protective measures against SLAPPs are contained in section 19 of the Bill. It inserts a new Part 4A into the Act. The sections to be included in the new Part 4A define SLAPP proceedings along with several key concepts associated with them. Senators will have an opportunity to view that. This is significant and comprehensive legislation that seeks to strike a balance between protecting reputations and safeguarding freedom of speech and public participation. It represents a robust, fair and proportionate response to the challenges of a rapidly evolving and increasingly complex media landscape. I thank Senators for affording the time. I will listen carefully to their contributions.”
“The Bill delivers on the programme for Government commitment to introduce safeguards against strategic lawsuits against public participation, SLAPPs, to prevent the misuse of defamation laws to stifle public interest reporting. I know there has been some concern that not all the detail of the SLAPP directive has been transposed here. It was appropriate that we just transpose the defamation aspect of the SLAPP directive into the Defamation (Amendment) Bill. The other aspects of the SLAPP directive will be transposed in other legislation or through secondary legislation, if possible. We know the impact that SLAPPs can have. Fortunately, they do not exist that much in Ireland. I have not seen examples of SLAPPs. I would be interested to hear if other Members have. Of course, it is all very subjective.”
“One of the issues with online defamation is that material can be posted anonymously or under a false name, making it hard to identify the publisher of a defamatory statement. Section 22 of the Bill therefore introduces a new section 45 into the 2009 Act, which provides for a statutory jurisdiction for the Circuit Court to grant identification orders where a defamatory statement has been published online by an anonymous poster. At present, these orders can only be obtained in the High Court, where people have to go to get what is referred to as a Norwich Pharmacal order. The statutory provision that I am introducing will make it much easier for individuals who have been defamed online to go to the service provider and to find out the identity of the defamer.”
“The new defence now requires a defendant to demonstrate that the statement made was in the public interest, that they reasonably believed publishing the statement was in the public interest and that the statement was published in good faith. That is a benefit and an advantage to the legislation. The Bill also introduces a number of provisions to support early settlement of proceedings. For example, it provides that the court may encourage the parties to avail of alternative dispute resolution, ADR, in certain cases, amend deadlines and make orders to facilitate the effective use of ADR. The Bill also makes it easier for those who have been subjected to online defamation to seek to identify a person who is defaming them anonymously online.”
“Provision is also made, in section 13, for a new defence for broadcasters, where a defamatory statement is made during a live broadcast, whether by an invited participant, or unexpectedly by a bystander. That is appropriate. Members of the House will also be aware that I am introducing a new provision that sets out what is referred to as the section 26 defence of fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest. The feedback in respect of the defence that has been there since 1 January 2010 is that it is a very complex defence that publishers and defendants find difficult to avail of. The new legislative and statutory provision this Bill will put in place is much simpler and will assist the use of that defence. I have simplified it.”
“Too many times, I have listened to retailers say they have decided to settle an unmeritorious claim by paying more than €5,000 or €10,000 just to make the claim go away. They have been advised by their lawyers or by individuals in insurance companies that they are better off not taking the risk of proceeding, which simply encourages unmeritorious actions. I hope, after the Oireachtas goes to the trouble of putting this really powerful statutory defence into the new defamation Act, that it will be used by retailers. I also point out that this provision was introduced by my predecessor, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, in August 2024. I have made no change to it whatsoever. It is exactly the same as when it was introduced. The suggestion that I have, in some respect, tried to change it is completely false.”
“These include a provision in section 8 for a new statutory provision in so-called retail defamation cases. This responds to serious concerns expressed by retailers and the hospitality sector, particularly small and medium businesses, about the increase in unfounded claims of defamation made against them. These claims can arise when individuals are asked to produce proof of payment or told that a particular form of payment cannot be accepted. The defence does not apply in circumstances where a retailer does not act in good faith or publishes the statement disproportionately. This might occur, for example, if the statement is shouted across a crowded venue when it could have been raised discreetly. This will provide a powerful new defence for retailers. I hope they will avail of it.”
“Once judgments by the High Court are made in respect of defamation awards, there will be an understanding as to the basis upon which the courts are awarding awards and the constituent make-up of them. It is noteworthy that a defamation action in the Circuit Court does not have a jury. In most areas of civil law, we assign responsibility to the Judiciary sitting on its own to determine the actions and outcomes of cases. I will take Senators through some aspects of the legislation that may be of some interest to them. Section 6 will introduce a “serious harm” test for corporate bodies. It provides that a statement about a body corporate is not defamatory unless it has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to its reputation. The Bill will introduce new statutory defences to defamation.”
“This aspect of the Bill was in the legislation when it was introduced to the Dáil by my predecessor, the Minister, Deputy McEntee. It was an essential part of the programme for Government that there would be reform of defamation laws in accordance with what the previous Government has done. I think it is the case that if juries in the High Court are abolished, it will and should reduce the incidence of excessive or disproportionate awards. It should reduce costs and delays. It is inevitably the case that when it comes to the hearing of a case with a jury, it will take longer than a case heard by a judge alone. It will also have an impact on the length of hearings.”
“The Bill provides for a range of reforms to address the concerns raised by many stakeholders during the review of the Defamation Act 2009. The 2009 Act was noteworthy and was generated by Senator McDowell when he was in the office I now occupy. The main purposes of the Bill before the Seanad today are to tackle disproportionate awards; to support more consistent and predictable redress in defamation cases; to reduce legal costs and delays; to support easier access to justice for those whose reputations are unjustly attacked and those who are subject to unfounded defamation proceedings; and to provide enhanced protection for responsible public interest journalism. One of the aspects of the Bill that got considerable attention in the Lower House was the abolition of juries.”
“At present, I would have thought the biggest issue in terms of defamation in Ireland is the extent to which people are defamed online by anonymous, unknown individuals. I am pleased to announce this legislation includes a provision which provides a statutory mechanism for somebody to go to the Circuit Court and get an order for the service provider to identify the person who has been defaming them. Ireland has a very strong media. It is a very free media. I was pleased to see that Ireland is right at the top of the World Press Freedom Index 2025, at number 7 of the 180 nations listed. That shows the extent to which media freedom operates in Ireland. It is something we sometimes do not take account of and recognise. Long may that freedom continue.”
“I thank the Leader of the Seanad for listing this business this afternoon. As Senators will be aware, I am here to present the Defamation (Amendment) Bill to Seanad Éireann. Those aware of the statutory provisions in respect of defamation will know that when it comes to any legislation governing defamation, we are trying to balance two conflicting constitutional rights. On one hand, we are trying to take into account the right of the individual to his or her good name; and on the other, we are trying to take into account an individual's right to freedom of expression. In many instances, defamation laws focus on press freedom in Ireland but, as Members of this House will be aware, they go much broader than that.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”