Matt Carthy
Cavan-Monaghan · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“I move amendment No. 1: To insert after "on 2nd July, 2026": "and: further calls on the Government to provide that the Accommodation Recognition Payment (ARP) scheme shall apply only to: — existing recipients with respect to the beneficiaries of temporary protection currently benefitting from the scheme where those beneficiaries of tempor…”
“10 reads, "In page 5, line 31, after “section 2” to insert “or section 3”." Section 3 criminalises recording, sharing or publishing an intimate image without consent where it seriously interferes with a person's privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to them.”
“In terms of the legislation, as well as the breadth of the issues covered in the Bill, the other problem is the number of amendments the Minister has introduced on every Stage on new and unrelated matters that just have not been discussed in this House at all and will not get discussed here because of guillotines being applied and the Min…”
“It is not an additional punishment to be included on the register. As has been said, this is just about having a mechanism whereby the constitutional diktat that justice should be done in public is actually made available. This is not an additional punishment. It is actually a protection for others.”
“We must bear in mind that the vast majority of domestic violence offences and abuses never make their way to court. Most of them never result in a complaint. When complaints are made, most of them never see a file being sent to the DPP. Even when that happens, most of them never actually make it to court.”
“She made the point that when a woman, in the majority cases we are talking about women, goes to a Garda station to make a complaint about domestic violence you can virtually bet your life that it is not the first instance of domestic violence that she has encountered.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,467 lines we hold for Matt Carthy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 30.
“(3) The Government shall consult with relevant Departments, agencies, and stakeholders, including those with responsibility for immigration control, border management, and CTA coordination. (4) An assessment prepared under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas not later than 12 months after the commencement of this section, and thereafter at intervals not exceeding three years.”.”
“I move amendment No. 4: In page 16, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “Assessment of Common Travel Area impacts 2. (1) The Government shall prepare and publish an assessment of the potential and actual impacts on the Common Travel Area arising from the operation of this Act. (2) An assessment under subsection (1) shall include— (a) analysis of any implications for the movement of persons between the State and Great Britain, (b) consideration of the effect of international protection procedures on CTA integrity and cooperation, (c) evaluation of any risks of displacement or diversion effects within the CTA, and (d) measures proposed to mitigate identified impacts.”
“I move amendment No. 3: In page 16, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “Annual report on sovereignty and external obligations 2. (1) The Minister shall, not later than 31 March each year, lay before the Oireachtas a report detailing: (a) the extent to which the State’s international protection system remains under domestic control; (b) obligations arising from EU or international agreements during the preceding year; and (c) steps taken to ensure that Irish sovereignty and democratic oversight are maintained. (2) The report shall be referred to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice for consideration.”.”
“The Minister of State says there is ongoing co-operation that is official, political, and operational. For all of that co-operation and official, political, and operational collaboration, what is the current percentage of those in our international protection system who came through the common travel area? What measures have been taken? In terms of the official, political, and operational collaboration, how much has it reduced the numbers? What are the outcomes of that co-operation? Which particular measures enacted as a result of that official, political, and operational collaboration have led to reductions, if any, that have taken place? I hope the Minister of State can answer those questions because if he cannot and if he does not have those figures to hand, it only stresses further why amendment No. 4 should be adopted by this House.”
“We asked the Minister of State's Department during pre-legislative scrutiny about the analysis carried out in respect of the common travel area and how either the pact or this legislation would impact on it and it could not answer because it did not have that information. That is a reckless approach when we are considering legislation as important as this.”
“We know because some of the amendments which have been brought forward by the Government to this Bill were done so directly as a result of decisions that were made in Westminster and the so-called efforts to avoid the pull factors which have been outlined. The decisions made in Westminster are going to have implications but we do not know how the Government is going to respond to them in the future. It is really important that the Minister of State provides the Houses with that assurance. If he cannot, I do not know how we can proceed. The Government is saying that 80% plus of people claiming international protection are coming from the common travel area, yet our entire international protection system is going to be based on an EU framework that takes no account of the system whatsoever. This is not just me saying this.”
“What concrete measures have been achieved, particularly in respect of the need for a bilateral arrangement with the British Government? This is the worst of every world because we are dealing in the first instance with a divided island and two separate States. Not only is the Northern State outside of the common travel area, migration matters are not devolved matters. Even if the Assembly, the elected institution of the Six Counties, wanted to make moves or collaborate with the Government here, it cannot do it. It cannot take any measures whatsoever. We are dependent on decisions being made at Westminster with all of the flux and the turmoil going on there, and we know those decisions have big impacts. How do we know those decisions have big impacts?”
“Therefore, it is inexcusable that the Government has no mention of the common travel area in this legislation dealing with international protection. We say that a certain proportion - more than 80%, according to most Government Ministers - are coming from the common travel area and there is no reference to it whatsoever in a Bill that is 230 pages long. As regards the one amendment that actually accounts for the common travel area, the Government has indicated it will not accept it. Likewise, the Minister mentioned he has had many engagements with his British counterparts in respect of the common travel area and international protection. Before Members vote on this amendment, it is important that the Minister of State gives a report on what has actually been achieved.”
“We know who applies at ports and airports and it is assumed by the Government that everybody else who has not applied for international protection at the ports and airports has come across the Border. It has no way of knowing that. It does not know how many within our IPAS system came here for other reasons - in some cases legitimate reasons such as on tourist, employment or student visas despite international evidence suggesting a proportion of IPAS applicants came for those reasons. It is mind-boggling that the Government does not gather that statistical analysis but then it is completely disingenuous to use its failure to gather that statistical information to state that a certain number is coming from across the Border. I accept that a large proportion probably does come from the common travel area.”
“It is not one of these cases where we call on the Department to produce a report and as soon as it is finished producing one report, it is working on another one. It is simply stating that the Houses will be informed as to how this is impacting and that is really important. Could the Minister of State outline precisely what proportion of applicants seeking international protection are coming from the common travel area? I can cite five different figures given by different Ministers. The truth is the Government does not know. It does not know - and we will be dealing with this in a later amendment - because it does not compile statistics and analyses as to where people are actually coming from in terms of international protection.”
“That is different to tying people's hands behind their back. I am deeply disappointed. The Minister of State gave me a little bit of false hope in how he presented his reply because I thought he was going to accept our amendment on the common travel area. That was naïveté on my part because I thought for a moment that we would have a constructive engagement. Let us be very clear what we are asking the Government to do. The amendment simply asks the Government to prepare and publish an assessment on the potential and actual impacts of the common travel area arising from this Act, and the mitigating measures to address those areas at regular intervals, and not exceeding three years. It is not a burdensome task.”
“I accept the points made by Deputy O'Gorman. If people were really serious about dealing with migration, in particular forced migration for those seeking international protection, they would want a multilateral framework which deals with the causes. They would want to end conflicts and deal with climate change and gross economic inequalities internationally. It is again ironic that some of those who are most vociferous in terms of articulating an anti-migrant position are the same people who would be most resistant and hostile to measures aimed at ending conflict and dealing with climate change or addressing economic inequalities. That is different. Dealing on a multilateral basis with all of those issues is crucially important and Sinn Féin will support measures in that respect.”
“The Minister of State has never answered the question on the disadvantage we faced by not signing up to the precursors to the directives and regulations that Sinn Féin opposed on this occasion. At an EU-wide level, we signed up to the forerunner for information sharing, Eurodac, and the forerunner of rights to reply, the Dublin regulations the Minister of State mentioned. We have never signed up to an EU-wide system in respect of the processing of applications, standards and conditions because of the common travel area. The Government parties at the time wanted to say that they were doing something on migration and signed us up lock, stock and barrel with no consideration given to other issues. A political propaganda judgment was made, as opposed to a considered political decision in respect of what was in Ireland's best interests.”
“Likewise, I will reject the suggestion that there is a binary choice between Brexit or EU integration on steroids. That is not the choice the State has. The choice is about how we engage with the European Union and what measures of integration we support. As I said, this should be based on our what is in our interest and what we need to collaborate on. Amendment No. 2 refers clearly to these Houses, the elected representatives of the people who make decisions in respect of migration policy. Amendment No. 3 states that the Government would provide a report to the Houses. It is interesting to note that the Minister mentioned the forerunners to the EU asylum and migration pact. He is correct. We signed up to a number of directives and regulations, but we did not sign up to all of them.”
“That it is why it is so disappointing that the Government is simply abandoning Protocol 21 and the logic by which it which was put in place. It is being disingenuous in that regard. The Minister of State spoke about being honest and suggested we are an anti-EU party. That is a trope that has been thrown out for the past ten or 15 years. Anybody who analyses my record in the European Parliament and that of other Sinn Féin MEPs will know that we support European measures when they are in Ireland's best interests and oppose them when they are not. We will not make any apologies for that. That is what Irish representatives should do, and do so proudly, because I do not think anybody in the House advocates for a Brexit-type scenario whereby we withdraw entirely from the European Union as Britain did.”
“The Constitution provides that the State can cede sovereignty to the European Union, but that happens when it is in our interest to do so and the logic is that we need to do it on the basis that we have to collaborate with others. Of course we accept that there are some issues which are so big that we can only have a meaningful impact in terms of addressing them if we work on a pan-European and wider multilateral basis, where possible. Nobody will champion the UN, for example, more than our party. For all its flaws, it is the best hope humanity has. In respect of the European Union, we have to deal with things on a case-by-case basis and analyse the detail and logic behind any decision because that is what the Irish people mandated. That was the basis of Protocol 21 in the Lisbon treaty and why it was so important.”
“I do not know if people do not hear, do not understand or refuse to recognise what has been said. I would argue that Sinn Féin is probably the only party represented in this House that has accepted the will of the people in every referendum. The parties of Government did not accept the will of the people in respect of the first Nice and Lisbon treaty referendums and held a second vote in each case. Sinn Féin campaigned in those referendums and was on the losing side. We accepted the will of the Irish people. That does not mean that we forget the basis on which those referendums were won and how that applies to the amendments I am putting forward. Categoric assurances were provided to the Irish people in terms of the sovereignty that would be handed over.”
“It will speak volumes to the seriousness of what the Minister has said about his respect for these Houses and the ability of these Houses to act in the best interests of the Irish people, going forward, and being able to be flexible in terms of making changes to the international protection system when circumstances change. That is the definition of democracy.”
“Some come from a genuine place of concern for those people who are coming here and for the capacity of the system to deal with the numbers who are coming. Others come from a nastier and racist position. Let us call a spade a spade. If people were serious about tackling those concerns, the single greatest thing we could do to ensure we have a migration system that works effectively would be to get rid of the Border on this island and ensure we deal with the issue on an all-Ireland and united-Ireland basis. The people who have concerns and believe that these issues have not been managed should be the loudest and most vocal united Ireland proponents among us. It is the only way in which to deal with this. I look forward to hearing the response of the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, to these amendments.”
“It is opting into virtually every EU measure that is coming forward. It is all a facade. It is to show that the Government is doing something when in reality all it is doing is signing up to measures it cannot control. It is not taking cognisance of the position. The Government carried out a review of Protocol 21. It acknowledged explicitly that opt-outs exist and are maintained because of the common travel area. Yet, the opt-outs are always and repeatedly being disregarded. The amendment requires the Government to examine and publish how the Bill will affect the common travel area and mandates analysis. I will say the following, and I think this is an appropriate time to talk about the issue. Lots of people have raised concerns about immigration into this State.”
“If it is the case that those numbers are, in fact, the reality, and if we were serious and if the Government was serious about dealing with the dysfunction in the international protection system, the priority would be having a bilateral agreement with the British Government in respect of ensuring that we have a returns policy and the sharing of information and all of that. We have an informal agreement but there have been no moves and there is no sense of urgency or sign that the Government is dealing with this issue as a serious matter. I hope and expect that amendment No. 4 will be supported by the Government. This amendment is required because the Government signed us up without any consideration. We have seen it time and time again. The Government is now rendering Protocol 21 meaningless.”
“It also states: (3) The Government shall consult with relevant Departments, agencies, and stakeholders, including those with responsibility for immigration control, border management, and CTA co-ordination. It states that assessment should be laid before this House on an annual basis. That is crucially important because various Ministers at different times - I have lost count of the different figures - have said that 80%, 85%, 90% and 90%-plus of the number of people seeking international protection in this State arrive via the common travel area. I presume everyone agrees that over 50% are coming from within the common travel area, and it is probably higher. If we are then locking ourselves into an EU framework that does not take cognisance of that, it requires an explanation that no Minister has given.”
“The pact, naturally enough for a European Union document, makes no provision for and gives no consideration whatsoever to the common travel area and how changes that happen in Britain might affect changes here. The amendment asks the Government to "prepare and publish an assessment of the potential and actual impacts on the common travel area arising from the operation of this Act." It states that the assessment should include: (a) analysis of any implications for the movement of persons between the State and Great Britain, (b) consideration of the effect of international protection procedures on CTA integrity and cooperation, (c) evaluation of any risks of displacement or diversion effects within the CTA, and (d) measures proposed to mitigate identified impacts.”
“3 asks for the Minister, on an annual basis, to lay before the Oireachtas a report dealing with: (a) the extent to which the State’s international protection system remains under domestic control; (b) obligations arising from EU or international agreements during the preceding year; and (c) steps taken to ensure that Irish sovereignty and democratic oversight are maintained. It states the report should be referred to the Oireachtas joint committee on justice. I hope the Minister will indicate support for that provision, if he does not support the first. It is important there be an outline. Amendment No. 4 is crucially important because it goes to the crux of the second reason signing up to the EU asylum and migration pact was an absolute mistake.”
“Rather, democracy fundamentally is about the ability of the people to kick out governments and elect a different government to make different decisions, if that is what the Irish people want. That is what is fundamentally being breached here. I have three amendments in this regard. I have moved amendment No. 2. It expressly states it should be the will of these Houses to ensure no external body or institution would have the ability to make laws in respect of migration or international protection without the express approval of the Oireachtas and primary legislation. Amendment No.”
“It had become a political issue and the Government wanted to be able to say that it was getting its act together and signing up to an EU pact, despite, as I mentioned earlier, not having any plan to actually deal with that. This means that, into the future, we will be operating within an EU framework. There is a lack of scrutiny in respect of this legislation. We are dealing with rushed timelines and a situation where we are going to have legislation enacted by June, although the processes and plan to deal with that will come at some undefined point in the future. Elected representatives from here on will essentially be shut out. Democracy is not just about the ability of governments to make decisions.”
“One of the ways in which their concerns were assuaged - not the concerns of all Irish people, and certainly not mine - was through Protocol 21 of the Lisbon treaty. That gave Ireland something very important, namely, an opt-out of anything related to justice, security or freedom measures, which includes measures such as the EU asylum and migration pact. The Government, therefore, did not need to sign up to all aspects of it. As I have outlined, it is not in our best interests to do so. Why then did the Government sign up to the EU asylum and migration pact, because it does not make any sense? Why would it tie the hands of not only the Government of the day but also all future governments to show flexibility? It did so because it wanted to show that it is doing something on the issue of migration.”
“No one expressed confidence in the ability of the Government or State to be in a position by June of this year to fundamentally transform the system and, therefore, it is crucially important that we deal with those areas we can deal with on a State-wide level. The Minister spoke about how the Irish people amended the Constitution to allow us to sign up to measures at an EU level, that is, to hand over sovereignty. They did so on the very clear premise that it would be on matters we must deal with on an EU basis. In fact, throughout every debate, particularly in debates relating to both the Nice and Lisbon treaties, the Irish people had concerns about what they could mean for the ability of governments to hand over powers that could never be returned.”
“Therefore, it does not make any sense for us to sign up to an EU framework, particularly when we are doing it from a starting point where we have a dysfunctional system and have not seen advances in processing. I accept that first-instance processing and median times have reduced, but the appeals have increased more than the first instances have reduced. Therefore, there is nothing. As I mentioned earlier, we dealt with pre-legislative scrutiny. Stakeholders, Department officials, legal and migration experts and people from all different perspectives were before the committee, including people with a humanitarian perspective.”
“When it comes to having a competent government that can speed up our processing times, the only difference signing up to the EU migration and asylum pact makes is that we will be potentially liable for fines if we do not achieve it. Not only do the Irish people get the benefit of having an incompetent Government, but taxpayers will also be fined for the luxury of having that incompetent Government. We do not need the pact to ensure that when decisions are made, they are enforced or at least monitored nor do we need the pact to move away from the blatant profiteering that has become the hallmark of this system. For all of those things, we need a competent government.”
“In respect of what that means in the context of the EU asylum and migration pact and how Sinn Féin approached this, we looked at each of the regulations and directives within the pact in turn and deliberated as to whether it was in Ireland’s best interest to sign up to the pact. There were a number of aspects with which Sinn Féin agreed we need to sign up to on the basis that the only way they are workable is through working together. Of course, we need to have an EU framework to deal with returns regulations and the sharing of information between member states. We do not need an EU framework to ensure that we have an efficient processing system, however. In fact, it is irrelevant.”
“Earlier, the Minister spoke about the democratic process and how the EU migration and asylum pact was democratically voted through by the Houses of the Oireachtas and, therefore, there should be no question of it or the implications for Irish sovereignty. To be clear, when I say, “Irish sovereignty”, I mean the ability of the Irish Government to enact legislation relating to immigration, particularly international protection, in this State. I make no apologies for Sinn Féin’s position that we oppose, and will continue to oppose, moves that undermine Irish sovereignty unnecessarily. I am a former Member of the European Parliament. I believe in the concept of the European Union where member states work together to deliver things that can only be delivered by working collaboratively.”
“I move amendment No. 2: In page 16, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “Sovereignty of the State in Matters of International Protection 2. (1) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting the sovereign authority of the State, exercised through the Oireachtas, to determine policy in respect of immigration and international protection. (2) No provision of this Act shall be interpreted as delegating such authority to any external body or institution without the express approval of the Oireachtas by primary legislation.”.”
“On section 1, this is fundamental to the discussion that we had. I do not think there is any suggestion that Members should be rushed to dealing with a section as important as dealing with individual amendments. The legislation will give the Minister the power to appoint by order the day on which this will come into place in terms of schedules. Can the Minister give this House any indication as to when he expects to make those orders?”
“Is the Minister not answering the questions I put in respect of the resources he will put in place to implement the legislation? It is a fundamental question. I do not know how we can even proceed without those questions being answered.”
“I put these questions to the Minister and I hope he will take the opportunity to give this House assurance in respect of the preparatory work and in respect of his own Department, the IPO, IPAT, Tusla, the civil Legal Aid Board and the overall process and accommodation. If he cannot provide assurances that his Department is ready for everything it has enacted, I cannot support section 1, which would give the Minister the authority to enact this legislation at a time of his choosing, potentially opening up this State to huge costs from legal challenges and infringement proceedings at an EU level.”
“The approach the Minister has taken has not allowed the Opposition to play its constitutional role in scrutinising this legislation. That is a huge problem. As the Minister said and as has been outlined a number of times, this is one of the most substantive pieces of legislation. There could be financial consequences way beyond the outworkings of the legislation itself. Therefore, it is unacceptable that the committee has not been allowed to carry out its work by having a deliberation on the questions I have put to the Minister in an over-and-back format on Committee Stage.”
“He has had to bring forward amendments on Committee Stage, yet the Opposition is expected to go through the Bill in detail, engage with those who need to be engaged with, submit amendments, analyse the Government's amendments and analyse other Opposition amendments within a timeframe that is simply impossible. To remind people, we are talking about a Minister with the resources of an entire Department. Each TD has one member of staff who can assist them in dealing with this. That is a huge ask, and I say this in deference to other parties because within my party, we have the numbers to ensure I deal with justice, home affairs and migration on their own. TDs in smaller parties are expected to go through this legislation and process while also dealing with three or four other portfolios.”
“Many of the witnesses who came before the committee said they had a real problem because they did not know what was going to be in the legislation in order to contribute to the pre-legislative scrutiny. The Bill was produced but within a week, we had to deal with Second Stage, and before Second Stage was completed, we had to submit amendments. Amendments are a crucial part of bringing Bills forward. The Minister is coming at this with all the resources of a Government Department behind him, and by his own admission, he said this is an all-of-government priority. With all the resources he had, however, the Minister was not able to have the general scheme completed by the time it was published and was not able to have all his amendments and proposals ready before Second Stage.”
“To respond to some of the points the Minister has made regarding the approach, the Minister has a responsibility, as do the Government and the Department, but these Houses have responsibilities as well. One of the difficulties I have with the approach that has been taken is that we are being denied the full ability to play our constitutional role in scrutinising legislation. The Minister mentioned the general scheme brought before the justice committee. Yes, there were good deliberations, good debate and cross-party collaboration from all members of the committee, but the Minister did not say that when the general scheme was brought forward, there was huge gaps in it. There were parts of the general scheme that the Minister's departmental officials told us they would deal with on Second Stage, Committee Stage or Report Stage.”
“Is the Minister proposing to bring forward additional transparency for private operator contracts? It would be appropriate at this point if the Minister could outline to us the capacity of both the International Protection Office, IPO, and the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, IPAT, the current levels of staffing within both, the staffing gaps within both, the necessary increase in staffing within both that will be required to implement the Bill on enactment, and how the Minister will make up the difference in time for the enactment. Has the Minister or his Department carried out any analysis of potential infringement proceedings that could be taken, if his Department is not in a position to do what it is making itself legally obliged to do?”
“There could well be infringement proceedings against this State in respect of the failure to adhere to the enactment of the legislation and that is why I have asked the Minister a number of questions. I would appreciate if the Minister could come back and outline the preparatory work that is in place to deal with the issues. In terms of accommodation capacity, what is the plan to ensure that by the time this Bill is enacted, there will be accommodation to deal with any obligations that are contained within the pact? Will there be a move away from the profiteering model that has been the hallmark of this system and ensured that a very small number of companies and operators have made fortunes in very short periods without accountability and transparency?”
“I am not suggesting the Minister does but the difficult is that the Bills Office was under so much time pressure that by the time it informed me of that, there was not any time for me to ask any questions or seek any clarifications, as should have been the case. I mentioned on Second Stage that I fully believe this Bill will not be enacted a full year before provisions of it are challenged legally on the basis that there will be problems with the legislation, and one of the reasons there will be problems is that we have not had proper deliberation. The second reason these Houses have cause to be concerned is that this Bill is locked in with the EU migration and asylum pact.”
“We are dealing with section 1 and it is important. It should not be in some respects, because section 1 includes in many respects standard clauses that state that the Act shall come into operation on the day or days as the Minister may appoint by order, and deals with the power to introduce sanctions. It is important in respect of this legislation because I have serious concerns about us passing a piece of legislation that I do not believe the Department or the agencies tasked with responsibilities have the ability to enact. That is a genuine concern that needs to be teased out on Committee Stage. I did speak to the amendment that was ruled out of order. I would love to get clarification as to precisely why, as I was told, it conflicts with the principle of the Bill.”
“1 to ensure there is this accountability. The proposal is that a mechanism be inserted in subsection 2 whereby the Act will not come into operation until he can provide the guarantees we have sought on the operational and staffing arrangements, the resources for the purpose of implementing the Bill, and the measures in place to ensure that all relevant bodies and contractors are capable. If he cannot give an assurance to the House that he will put in place these basic protections, I do not know how we can adopt section 1 and I will certainly call a vote on it.”
“Then there is the aspect of commercial sensitivity, as if there is competition with the Department. There is no competition. There is no reason there should not be increased scrutiny and transparency. The annual figure of €1.2 billion is €3.2 million or thereabouts every single day if my maths are right. This is spent on an aspect of public expenditure for which the public has no oversight whatsoever in real terms. The only information provided is how much certain companies get in totality but there is no detail on what they are providing, how many beds they provide per day, the locations, who the beneficial owners are, or anything that I would describe as being of basic common interest to be informed of. I do not know if the Minister can indicate whether he will table a similar amendment to amendment No.”
“We do not need an EU asylum and migration pact to gather this information; we need a Department and a Minister on top of their jobs. We do not need the EU asylum and migration pact to deal with the huge expenditure of public money, which I categorise in very large instances as wastage of public money. The truth is that the Department is spending more taxpayers' money every year - last year it was estimated at €1.2 billion - at a time when many of the people in IPAS accommodation are in what I would describe as disgraceful conditions. Who is benefiting? It is the operators who are getting huge sums of money with no transparency whatsoever. This transparency could and should be provided but the Department will not do so, in terms of beneficial ownership and the details of contracts supplied.”
“It means that the processing time from beginning to end is taking longer now than it was when the Minister came into office. For all the big spin and publicity about the progress that has been made, the truth of the matter is that we still do not have it right. We do not need the EU asylum and migration pact to get it right. We can introduce legislation in the House without any pact and without any of this rushed legislation or this debacle we have here today, and with proper scrutiny of the legislation. Likewise, in terms of the enforcement of decisions, the Minister will tell us about the great work of monitoring and ensuring that deportation orders are met. More people were given deportation orders in 2025, whom we do not know whether they have left the State, than in 2024.”
“I happened to see a report that the Department has prepared for a committee of the House, which tells us that in respect of processing times the overall median processing times for first-instance decisions went down from 16 months in 2024 to 14 months in 2025. Bravo. These are the figures that the Ministers have been telling everybody about regarding the progress they have made in reducing processing times. What they often forget to say is that the median times for all of 2024 for appeals determined by IPAT was ten months and the median time in 2025 for international protection appeals was 12.5 months. The two months saved in the median time in terms of the average processing time in the first instance has been more than outweighed by the 2.5 months added to the appeals stage. What does this mean in reality?”
“As I have said, because the Bills Office was under so much pressure and working to incredibly tight timeframes, which is no way to treat the staff of the House, we do not have any opportunity to question the logic as to why amendment No. 1 was ruled out of order. If it was stated that it was because it was in conflict with the approach the Minister has taken to the Bill, I would say that was absolutely right. The Minister has taken a position of moving full steam ahead with the enactment of the Bill due to the fact that the Government has signed up to the EU asylum and migration pact with no idea of how it will be dealt with. We do not need the EU asylum and migration pact to accelerate processing times; we need a competent Government. The Government tells us it is making progress.”