International Protection Bill 2026: Report and Final Stages
Seanad Éireann — 2026-03-25
============================================================

Patricia Stephenson (SD), Labour Panel

I am pulling on what Senator McCarthy said about Ireland's commitment to human rights not being theoretical but put into practice. That is why I very much welcome Senator Boyhan's amendment. I have similar amendments later on, but in case we do not get to them, I am choosing to speak on some of them now because they are related.
We heard from the Tánaiste last year that:
The ECHR’s guarantees cannot be negotiated away, despite what some politicians might claim. Sometimes it is necessary to state the obvious: protecting fundamental rights protects everyone ...
It is a sentiment I really agree with. In December, however, we saw Ireland sign the joint statement to the conference of ministers of justice. The Minister himself signed the statement. That served to blur Ireland's position when it comes to the ECHR, and that is why I support Senator Boyhan's inclusion in this legislation of the ECHR and the adherence to international human rights law. It is incredibly important, particularly when we saw the signature in December, which seemed to indicate a very deeply worrying shift in Irish policy vis-à-vis international law and the ECHR. Human rights are the minimum standard that should be afforded to every person in the world regardless of what country or community they are born into. John Hume said that the differences we had between us were an accident of birth, and that is why it is so important that human rights, both for us in Ireland and for anyone who may be seeking international protection, are upheld.
As part of that, the ECHR is a fundamental human rights framework forged out of the horror of the Second World War in Europe. Human rights are coming under attack globally as states weaken them, arguing they are restricting their ability to implement domestic policy and that sovereignty is being undermined because, externally and internationally, agreed human rights law is intent on hindering them. That is a worrying and insidious shift in language that we are seeing from the 27 member states that signed the joint declaration in December, of which Ireland was one.
To this point I ask why any state, whether Ireland or any other country, would want to implement domestic decisions that were contrary to the human rights framework, which is why I imagine we will be accepting Senator Boyhan's amendment. It is so clear that we believe in international law and human rights. We say that all the time. Why would we not include this as a matter of course? Why, in any policy area, whether treatment of asylum seekers or otherwise, would a country like Ireland want to go against international law and not include this amendment in such an important piece of international legislation? That is not a rhetorical question. I hope we get a response from the Minister on that.
Senator Boyhan's amendment puts the ECHR at the core of this new international protection legislation, which is the biggest overhaul in international protection we have seen since the early 2000s. It establishes Ireland as a country that does not just use the empty and often lazy rhetoric of international law. We can all say we believe in international law, we can all say we believe in human rights, but this amendment places Ireland as a country that practises what it preaches. I revert to Senator McCarthy's point about not just using theory but putting it into practice. I commend Senator Boyhan on this amendment.
We are all following the awful news in the Middle East. This issue is linked. We see attacks on international law and the large levels of forced displacement that will accompany that as well as the ongoing Russian war in Ukraine and the significant number of refugees in Europe that war has created. We will see significant displacement from the Middle East as a consequence of the breaches of international law there. That is why it is so important that things like the ECHR are built into our international protection legislation.
In response to these crises across the world, some of the Council of Europe countries, including Ireland, have taken a dangerous, populist and insidious path of turning our backs on the concept of the universality of human rights. Instead of turning towards the human rights system in times of crisis and safeguarding the values of human dignity and co-operation, we have seen countries in Europe, including Ireland, attempt to weaken human rights and the ECHR, as was done through the Chișinău process. The letter that was cosigned claimed the ECHR and the European Court of Human Rights were impacting domestic decisions on issues related to international protection and asylum seekers. As we know, if you have ever followed it, the data does not exist to back up that argument. I believe it is a significant stain on this Government's record when it comes to championing human rights and international law. It makes this Government's rhetoric of respecting international law out to be simply rhetoric. That is why I appeal to the Minister to include this amendment in the legislation and show us he practises what he preaches when it comes to human rights and international law.
Senator Boyhan's amendment and my amendments later on seek to address the utter shame and stain on the Government with regard to the letter signed in December. It was a populist move that was not required. There is no evidence in any of the traditional processes in Ireland or any of the judicial processes that have gone to the European Court of Human Rights that any withdrawal from Article 3 or Article 8 is necessary to implement domestic legislation. That is why having this included is so critical. Explicitly acknowledging and referencing the ECHR is fundamental to human rights protections within the international protection space. It will redress what I believe was a crucial mistake by this Government in December.
It is a tragic irony that one of the elements of the ECHR that our Government has expressed interest in altering is Article 3. We briefly talked about this last week. Ireland has brought two interstate cases against the British Government on the grounds of Article 3 protections. We saw one against the Tory Government's horrendous legacy Act, which was going to see survivors of the Troubles blocked from seeking crucial justice. There is also, of course, the torture of the hooded men case from the 1970s. The idea that Ireland is attempting to weaken protections under Article 3 when that is the article under which we have taken two interstate cases is actually nuts. It is through the looking glass stuff. It makes no sense. There is no logic behind it. For those who do not know, Article 3 deals with standards of torture and inhumane and degrading treatment. The letter cosigned by Ireland in December suggests that the ECHR's Article 3 on torture is actually too restrictive and limiting for domestic legislation. The Minister might tell us what parts of Article 3 on torture are too limiting for his domestic policies. Is there any inhumane and degrading treatment we should accept in Irish society to fit with his policy ambitions? Is it the squalid conditions in International Protection Accommodation Services, IPAS, centres that count as degrading under the ECHR that he might be trying to bypass? Is it the asylum seekers being forced to sleep in tents in winter conditions that he is worried could be classed as degrading treatment under Article 3 protections? Can we proportionately torture someone? Can we proportionately degrade someone? Is there proportionality around inhumane treatment? Exactly what part of the international protection system did this Government want less traditional oversight of when it came to the signature on a letter in December?
The fact is that Article 3 of the ECHR is an absolute right. It cannot be subject to any proportionality analysis under the ECHR. Simply put, torture is torture and degrading treatment is degrading treatment. It cannot be given a proportionality analysis. There is no balancing permitted between torture and national security interests, which I am sure we may hear some rhetoric on later.
I commend Senator Boyhan on tabling this amendment. It focuses on the idea of the universality of human rights and the idea that everyone is born equal. As I said before while citing John Hume, difference is just an accident of birth. Does the Minister think everyone is born equal or is there a hierarchy of equality and access to rights based on what country you were born in? If we were not born into a war-torn country and were not forced to flee we, have more rights than if we were born into a war-torn country and forced to flee, never mind that some of our traditional international partners like the US are now responsible for creating more uncertainty and displacement. When discussing Article 3, case law from the ECHR is clear that it is an unconditional right. European Court of Human Rights case law has established an incredibly high threshold for treatment to be considered inhumane and degrading. Therefore, I believe it is critical that this legislation explicitly reference the ECHR. That is why I commend Senator Boyhan on doing that. Any attempts to amend the threshold for torture and inhumane and degrading treatment is simply a race to the bottom. Through the political declaration, Ireland signalled to people in the human rights space that that was what it was doing. It signalled that we were interested in eroding the universality of human rights. It also signalled and represented a threat to the judicial independence of the ECHR. We should all be aghast that any such attempts would be made. That is why this amendment is about re-establishing our commitment to the universality of human rights when it comes to questions of international protection.
The 27 countries that signed the political declaration in December, including Ireland, are effectively saying in the face of the migration crisis that obligations in respect of inhumane and degrading treatment should be reduced. To be clear, this will not just reduce the human rights and right against torture of asylum seekers. It will reduce the human rights and right against torture and inhumane and degrading treatment of every single one of us - of every citizen. That is a terrifying thought. Senator Boyhan's amendment is about bringing us explicitly in line with the ECHR. This is not some flowery and soft amendment. It is crucial. We are seeing an existential threat to our human rights system, and we must, in times of crisis, be bolstering it. When social cohesion is being undermined, we must be bolstering our international human rights frameworks, not weakening them. During times of turbulence and polarisation, we need to be holding on to the legal frameworks that underpin ours and the Government's self-proclaimed values of human rights and dignity.
That is not to mind the fact that any weakening of the ECHR poses a significant risk to peace on this island, given that it is a core pillar of the Good Friday Agreement. We are so used to the British Government's complete disregard for the North of Ireland. That was clear during the Brexit negotiations and was completely clear from the Tories' legacy Act. I find it shocking that any Irish Government would sign a letter that sought to undermine the ECHR, a fundamental framework that underpins the Good Friday Agreement. This has real-life consequences for the North. The ECHR provides varied and diverse communities with a sense of trust that there is an external and neutral framework that provides the same human rights protections to anyone, regardless of what community they are from - orange, green or new communities to Ireland - and regardless of what part of Belfast or the wider North you are from. That is a worrying, perhaps unintended, consequence of the Minister's decision to sign that letter.
There is no data on the ECHR impacting deportations and international protection policy, but Senator Boyhan has asked for an analysis so that we can assess. This is why having a reporting amendment is so important. We can include this amendment in the legislation and will therefore be required to make an assessment of how the ECHR is impacting deportations and international protection policy, if it is, which I do not believe it is.
A major hole in the Government's argument around the ECHR somehow blocking domestic international protection policy is that there is no policy data. I think even the Minister said the ECHR is not impacting in Ireland - it might be impacting a few other member states in the Council of Europe but we have no data showing it is impacting Ireland. When the Minister for justice was asked by my colleague, Deputy Gannon, about providing the number of deportations that were blocked as a consequence of the ECHR, no data was given because there were no examples. That is because it is not a real threat to domestic legislation. It is a populist move to provide very easy soundbites, I must say, in the incredibly fractious societal context we now see ourselves in.
It is important to say that one of the leading voices in this process is the British Government. It was one of the leaders in this declaration which Ireland chose to sign. Under its own domestic pressures from Reform, the Labour Government thinks that leaning right to court Reform voters is somehow going to keep it in power. I think we can all agree you cannot out-reform Reform. That is a message for all of us. You cannot out-right the far right. It is clear the Tories and Reform want to take the UK out of the ECHR altogether. In this race to the bottom, we seem to be engaging closest with our closest neighbours in Britain. Will that lead to Ireland eventually removing ourselves from the ECHR? Senator Boyhan's amendment provides assurances to us that the Minister is serious about keeping us in the ECHR, about the international frameworks that underpin our international protection system and our entire international law and human rights frameworks.

---

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/seanad/2026-03-25/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:46+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-03-25