As the Minister has acknowledged, the primary purpose of the International Protection Bill is to provide for Ireland’s opting in to the EU migration and asylum pact. The State had an opt-out from that pact but Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael decided to discard it. They did that for narrow political reasons, so that they could say they had done something about immigration, when in fact all they have done is tie the hands of future Governments in making decisions in respect of immigration policy. It was an act of folly that has now been recognised by virtually everyone, except, of course, the Government itself.
The pre-legislative scrutiny report on the Bill by the cross-party Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, which the Minister has alluded to, recommended that the Government reconsider opting out of the majority of the provisions of the EU migration and asylum pact. During its deliberations, the committee received numerous written and oral submissions on the Bill, coming from very different perspectives, but there was one point on which it seemed everyone agreed: there is no chance that the Government will be able to deliver on the obligations it has signed up to within the timeframe laid out in the legislation.
Reflecting on the evidence the committee received, the report raised serious concerns about the ability of the State to meet the requirements it is signing up to under the EU pact, and noted that failures to adhere to the commitments under the pact could result in infringement proceedings and hefty fines. In other words, the Irish taxpayer could end up paying huge sums in EU fines for not adhering to the terms of a pact that there was no logical reason or obligation to sign up to in the first place.
Sinn Féin has been clear from the outset that signing up wholesale to the EU migration and asylum pact is not in Ireland’s interest. We will continue to oppose moves that undermine Irish sovereignty and that hand over more powers to the EU, particularly when that impedes our ability to make decisions in respect of migration.
Here is the point on democracy that the Minister seems to miss. He acknowledges it would not be legally possible to seek to opt out of measures we have opted into and are legally required to implement. The difficulty is that democracy is not just about the ability of governments to make decisions; it is also about the ability of the people to kick governments out and allow other governments to make different decisions if that reflects their will. The Minister’s party and Fine Gael have locked us into provisions that no other Government can opt out of.
The international protection system in this State is close to dysfunctional and riddled with problems. Fixing those problems does not require us to sign up to the EU migration and asylum pact. In fact, that approach diverts efforts away from addressing them and into the charade we have today, where the Department is instead concentrating on rushing legislation through the Oireachtas to meet an EU deadline.
As has been said many times, the pact does not consider Ireland’s unique position as a divided nation with an EU member state and a non-EU member state, and as a State that is part of a common travel area with a neighbouring island outside the EU, from which most international protection applicants, the Minister tells us, actually travel to Ireland.
Let us be clear: we did not need to sign up to the EU migration and asylum pact to sort out delays in processing applications. We did not need the pact to address delays in the appeals system. We did not need the pact to ensure decisions are enforced. We do not need the pact to address the ongoing profiteering that is the hallmark of this system. We do not need an EU pact for any of those things. We need a competent government. Instead, we are presented with a complex and extensive Bill that has been rushed through to comply with an EU deadline. This is no way to legislate or to allow proper scrutiny. Before we even begin to look at this Bill, we are told the Minister will be introducing substantial amendments on Committee Stage. It appears that the Government may also attempt to bypass the committee, again avoiding proper scrutiny of all aspects of this Bill. This rushed, panicky approach leads me to believe it will be only a matter of time before these Houses are dealing with amending legislation to fix new problems, which will undoubtedly emerge in the implementation of this Bill.
If we are to have a robust, fair and enforceable system, concerns that the Bill may not provide sufficient protections for vulnerable applicants, including victims of trafficking and stateless persons, need to be addressed. Significant concerns were raised during the pre-legislative scrutiny process regarding what is meant by legal counselling and who will be able to provide it. These need to be addressed. There are also concerns about the ability to meet the timeframes set out in the Bill, given the current crisis in legal aid and the fact that Tusla is significantly overstretched. Stakeholders and legal experts have told us about other concerns, and if the Minister does not allow the committee to deal with them during the process he will essentially prevent the Oireachtas from doing its job.
I firmly believe, and I will continue to say this, that it should be a priority for this State to retain maximum sovereignty in the areas of freedom, security and justice. That is why we had an opt-out under Protocol 21.
In the context of the migration and asylum pact, I have stated that we should not have opted in to the procedures regulation, the crisis on force majeure regulation, the qualification directive, the reception conditions directive or the EU settlement framework. I have acknowledged it and Sinn Féin has said this. It appears that this is what the Minister does not understand. There are a number of aspects of the pact that it was in Ireland's interest to opt into. We supported opt-ins relating to the asylum and migration management regulation and the Eurodac regulation. That was because these regulations are necessary for the sharing of information and implementing a returns policy. That makes sense, but we also have to recognise that protecting and maximising sovereignty in the context of EU integration has been demonstrated to be an important value of the Irish people. We have seen that with EU treaties. It is the people of this country who are best placed to make decisions and adjudicate on Governments in the context of how they are implemented.
The Government signed up to all aspects of the EU pact but is not prepared to deal with the implications of that. As already stated, there is no consideration of the common travel area, CTA, despite Government asserting that most international protection applicants actually arrive via the CTA. The fact that opt-outs under Protocol 21 exist in the first place is the result - as Government acknowledged in its own electronic travel authorisation, ETA - of the need to maintain the CTA with Britain. What we learned from the justice committee's pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of what has become the International Protection Bill is that while the Government signed up to all aspects of the pact, it is not prepared for the implications of that. Officials acknowledge that there is no consideration regarding the CTA area and that the Department has no idea how much we could be liable for in infringement proceedings if we are unable to meet the requirements of the pact.
I have raised with the Minister on a number of occasions the need for a bilateral agreement with Britain on returns. We need a bilateral agreement with Britain to ensure those international protection applicants who should be processed in Britain can be returned there in a timely way. In 2020, Ireland and Britain signed and agreed informal non-legally binding operational arrangements, but very little has been done to advance these. It is now time to do so. I contend that doing so should be a priority.
As a sovereign state, Ireland can and should put in place an international protection system and migration policy that is robust, fair and enforced and that is based on the unique circumstances and challenges that the State faces. That this is not yet being done is a political failure. It is because of the failures of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in government that our migration and international protection system is operating in crisis mode. Decisions and appeals are taking too long. On average, it now takes more than two and a half years for an international protection application to be finalised. Deportations are not enforced. Ministers have acknowledged here time and time again that in many cases they do not actually know whether people who are subject to orders have left the country or not.
Last year, there were 4,700 deportation orders signed and 2,700 confirmed deportations. In 2024, there were 2,403 deportation orders signed and 1,122 confirmed deportations. In 2023, there were 859 orders and 318 confirmed deportations. It can be seen that in each of those years, the figures relating to confirmed deportations were less than half the number of those signed. That is the reality that the Minister has attempted to obscure by focusing on a small number of high-profile deportation flights. By removing profiteering, resourcing the system and enforcing decisions, we could actually have a fair system that works for the people of this country and for those fleeing war and persecution. Binding us to EU rules that do not account for our unique challenges is not the answer.
Any discussion on the international protection system must address the massive, ongoing profiteering from the provision of IPAS accommodation that is often inappropriate . The cost of IPAS accommodation exceeded €1 billion last year. Hundreds of millions more will be spent on accommodation for Ukrainians. A small number of private operators have made millions from the Government's dysfunctional approach. There is no transparency, including around what qualifies many of these operators to provide services. The accommodation and the services provided at a very high cost have, it must be said, also often been low quality. There have been significant problems in relation to issues such as fire safety. The average rate that is being paid per bed per day for IPAS accommodation rose by 68% between 2022 and 2024. That resulted in massive profits for providers of accommodation.
In one case, we famously saw a company that was previously operating as a café go from making €2,000 in profits annually to paying its directors €4.5 million in a single year. The Comptroller and Auditor General was scathing in his review of IPAS contracts. His report found there was a lack of due diligence, gaps in payment controls and no contracts for properties where substantial payments were being made. There were even issues with a lack of insurance and fire certificates. The report found that the detail in some invoices lacked clarity, that it was not possible to reconcile claimed capacity in some cases as contracts were not available, and that the prepayment checklist used by IPAS did not include a check to verify the correct capacity or occupancy. The review found that for 35% of the samples examined, the invoiced rate was not clear and could not be verified because signed contracts were not available. Those issues emerged on foot of just a small sample of the contracts examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General. What is happening is clear.
I have said time and again that I do not know why the Minister refuses to act. There has to be a thorough review of every IPAS contract because there are, without question, other scandals that have yet to be divulged to Irish taxpayers who are picking up the tab. It is disgraceful that Ministers just shrug off any calls for accountability and transparency in respect of this matter. In the pre-legislative scrutiny report on general scheme of the International Protection Bill, there was a recognition of the profiteering that has taken place to date and a recommendation that the amount paid per day per bed for accommodation in the international protection system be capped. Given what has been exposed to date in regard to contracts relating to IPAS accommodation, the committee also recommended that due diligence, vetting and beneficial ownership takes be required in respect of any company or organisation that seeks to secure a contract for the provision of accommodation or services for those in the international protection system.
If we are to address the problems with the international protection system, then we need to also address the matter of where IPAS accommodation is located. To date, the location of IPAS accommodation has been decided on one criterion alone, namely the availability of a building or, in other words, by the private interests of property owners. It is an approach that has caused division and created anger and frustration in communities who have felt they are entirely disconnected from decisions that affect their local area. Sinn Féin has been clear that new IPAS centres should only be placed in areas where the resources are in place to accommodate them. That means not in areas where people are already struggling in terms of a lack of resources. We have said that the Pobal HP deprivation index should be used to identify communities that should absolutely not be considered for emergency accommodation.
The process of identifying suitable locations should commence with a pre-assessment of the needs of communities. That is the only way to ensure that the needs of both the communities and IPAS residents can be met. The availability of services, including GPs and school places, proximity to transport and existing levels of disadvantage in areas should govern the selection of locations for accommodations, not simply the fact that a private operator has a building they are willing to allow to be used in this process. Again, the planning exemption for IPAS and Ukrainian accommodation should end now. These were emergency measures that are now being abused as a mechanism to avoid any input from local communities. We have increasingly seen the ludicrous situation across the State where planning exemptions are being sought by property owners for a buildings the Department insists it is not even considering for this purpose. That becomes fertile ground for those with negative agendas to create confusion and division within communities.
As I mentioned, there are serious questions regarding the Government's ability to meet the timeframes for processing set out in this legislation, given the extensive delays that have characterised the international protection system to date. The Government's implementation plan for the EU migration and asylum pact projects staffing numbers in the event of either 15,000 applicants being in the system or in the event of there being 18,000 in July. The staffing complement required to process 15,000 applicants is 1,549. The staffing complement to process 18,000 applicants is 1,769. Last year, between the International Protection Office, the international protection and integration division of the Department and the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, there were 926 staff and 107 vacancies. That is a vacancy rate of over 10%. The total number is nowhere near the projected requirements.
There are also very serious concerns that neither Tusla nor the civil legal aid system will be able to cope with the demands they will face under this legislation. The Legal Aid Board has indicated that it may struggle to meet the demand for its services within the tighter timeframes provided for under the Bill. Of course, there are very good reasons to have very serious concerns about the capacity of Tusla to fulfil the responsibilities ascribed to it under this Bill when we consider the number of unaccompanied migrant children who have gone missing from State care in recent years and the myriad other debacles Tusla has been involved in. It is easy to understand the questions people will ask about the logic of adding to its role. There is understandable apprehension about the ability of the State to keep vulnerable children safe and particularly given the role of traffickers and people smugglers in bringing minors into the State and their involvement in their subsequent disappearance from State care. Given that this legislation contains provisions in respect of vulnerability checks, I want to highlight again the continued links the Department has with a company that was previously found to have supplied fake Garda vetting documents in the context of vulnerability assessments.
It is questionable how the timeframe set out in the EU pact will be met while maintaining a fair and robust system, particularly in view of the current processing timelines, increasing the risk the State will face infringement proceedings and large fines.
It is crucial that those granted international protection are integrated into Irish society, that they are facilitated in participating in their local communities in order that they can get to know their neighbours and wider community and that they be given the opportunities to learn about Irish culture, language, history and values and share their own with us. In other countries where this has not been done, we can see how it has undermined social cohesion and created divisions and ghettoisation.
The Minister has indicated that he will bring forward amendments to delay family reunification by three years. These proposals are a distraction from the real problems with the system, including delays and the failure to enforce deportations. The latter have had a much more significant impact in terms of numbers. Last year, 669 applications for family reunification were granted, including in respect of 452 children and 153 spouses. That compares with the more than 2,500 deportation orders that were not enforced last year. Family reunification plays a critical role in the successful integration of refugees. There need to be mechanisms around self-sufficiency and we need a robust system that is enforced, but we do not need to either be performative or undermine integration, which is key to social cohesion. Family reunification policies need to be sustainable but also fair, particularly in the reunification of parents and their children.
The Minister mentioned a number of times that there will be lots of opportunities for the Opposition to bring forward amendments. I think he said he would welcome amendments from the Opposition. Will he give a commitment that when the Opposition goes to the effort of preparing amendments, he will show us the courtesy of allowing them to be properly considered and scrutinised? Will he also give a commitment that the select committee will have an opportunity to scrutinise, debate and tease out the amendments he brings forward. The only way we can do that is if we actually deal with Committee Stage at the select committee. Will the Minister to give a commitment that he will not try to guillotine this Bill or bring it in here as a mechanism to try to rush it through? There are things more important than EU pacts. These include the right of the Irish people to know that their legislators looked through every line of what the Minister described as the most significant piece of migration legislation to come before these Houses in many years.
