International Protection, Asylum and Migration: Motion Dail Éireann — 2024-06-18 ============================================================ Mattie McGrath (IND), Tipperary The Rural Independent Group and I are fundamentally opposed to the migration pact and have made our opposition known for several months. The Dáil justice committee wrapped up its discussions on the pact more than a month ago. Since then, the Government tactically postponed the debate and vote in the Dáil until after the local and European elections, and the dogs in the street know that. We saw in the referendums that the Government withheld vital information that should have been put into the public domain, and it has tried to do the same with this, just hide it from the people. A pact that took nearly a decade to negotiate in Brussels is to be expedited through the Dáil and Seanad within several hours this week. The EU migration pact consists of five separate regulations. Within these regulations, there are ten regulatory measures, seven of which the Government proposes to adopt. However, it is denying the Dáil a vote on each of the seven opt-in measures, despite the European Parliament having held separate votes on each of the measures, as has been well documented. We should be discussing the pact section by section, because there is some good in the pact but there is also an awful lot of bad in it for our country. On 10 April 2024, the European Parliament voted in approval of the pact. I could not but be reminded of 10 April 101 years ago when Liam Lynch, the republican leader, was fatally wounded in the Knockmealdown Mountains, close to my home. All EU member states, with the exception of Ireland and Denmark, became bound by the pact after it had been voted for by the Parliament and the Council. Ireland has a hard-won opt-in provision because, like the UK, it enacted an opt-in provision in the areas of freedom, security and justice, which includes migration and migration laws. Opting in to the measures proposed by the Government under the pact will have grave consequences, including increasing numbers of asylum seekers or financial penalties under the solidarity mechanism of the pact. Ireland is required to accept an unspecified number of asylum seekers each year or face a financial penalty of at least €20,000 per person, imposed by the European Union. The quota of asylum seekers each country will be assigned under the pact will be based on population size, which does not work in our favour because of our small population, and on our GDP, which is seriously skewed by the multinational investors that are here at this time but which could disappear at any time like snow off a ditch. To make matters worse, if any future Government does not support the pact, it will not be able to opt out. While, in theory, a future Government could ignore the pact like Hungary, it would leave the country and taxpayers exposed to enormous fines. Why do we want to tie ourselves into some kind of a bond we cannot ever change? It is futile, short-sighted and divisive. The consequences of approving this pact or opting in to it will either impose an increasing number of asylum seekers on communities across Ireland each year or compel taxpayers to pay an annual fee of €20,000 for each person denied entry. The decision to opt in to such an agreement is utterly irrational and transfers the authority of immigration decision-making from Dublin to Brussels. We are ceding our sovereignty, as can be nakedly seen for all its truths. The process of returning asylum seekers to their first country of asylum or to safe countries will become more challenging due to stricter rules, including guarantees of the applicants' rights to access higher education and of their ability to stay in the country unless they pose a security risk. That is very scary. The ability of Ireland to designate safe countries is compromised due to the EU's authority to overrule any such decision. This is particularly relevant in the case of the UK due to its ongoing withdrawal process. We have designated very few countries as safe. We recently increased the number by two but some other European countries have twice as many as we do. Why are we so lethargic in that regard? Why have we not been doing this all along? If a member state claims to be under migratory pressure, it can request the EU to prevent other member states from returning any asylum seekers to them for up to 12 months, and that is startling. Under the crisis and force majeure regulation, a member state facing significant migratory problems can request support from the European Commission, including by asking other member states to take in some of their asylum seekers. This raises questions as to whether Ireland can be legally compelled to accept a quota of asylum seekers annually instead of paying a financial penalty. According to a reply my office obtained to a recent parliamentary question, the cost of accommodating asylum-seeking individuals in 2023 was €561 per week. That is a figure from the Minister's office. From the same data we know 64% of all asylum applicants assessed for eligibility in 2023 did not qualify, indicating they were either illegal immigrants or should never have been in the asylum system in the first place. We have been unable, therefore, to deal with it. The Minister has stated it is taking 19 months for an assessment. The system has been shambolic from day one. Ministers thought they could blame it on the Department of the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, and that they would get away with it but no, it has divided communities. Take my county mar fhocal scoir. Borrisokane, one of the towns that took in Ukrainians, was held up as a model throughout the country. Now, the Department is trying to force the town to take in asylum seekers instead of Ukrainians, who were welcomed into the community, worked there and lived there. We know what happened in Roscrea, with terrible treatment of the ordinary people there. We saw what happened in Rathcabbin, where it was the same story, with a nursing home that was being used for Ukrainians is now to be used as an IPAS centre. The same is true of Clonmel at the moment, where Hearns Hotel is to be used as a centre for IPAS, and what is going on in the Heywood Road is outrageous. British security forces are there, with no badges displayed. I condemn any violence or threats of violence, but is this what we want, to divide people? Is this what we fought for in 1916, 1922 and 1923? Is this the Ireland we need today? It is divide and conquer. The Department has been disgraceful at responding or engaging and the fire office, likewise, will not check out buildings. It is all cloak and dagger and it is not right to the people of Ireland. --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/2024-06-18/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:53:05+00:00 Sitting date: 2024-06-18