Council of the European Union Decision: Motions Dail Éireann — 2026-09-30 ============================================================ Matt Carthy (SF), Cavan-Monaghan My party is on record as saying that we believe in a managed migration system. We believe in the first instance that this should be guided by Irish priorities, by the needs and wishes of the Irish people and by an Irish government rather than the European Union. The Minister of State's stated objective with which he concluded a speech in terms of having EU alignment in respect of migration management - is a mistake because it ignores the realities of our own situation and the fact that we are a divided island. Part of our country is under British administration and we are part of a common travel area that the EU framework takes no account of whatsoever. Sometimes that is misrepresented by the Minister for justice and others saying that we oppose collaboration at any level with the EU. The Minister knows that while why we oppose signing up to the EU migration and asylum pact in its entirety, we did support signing up to those areas where it made sense to do so, namely, in respect of returns policy and Eurodac, the sharing of information. We agree with individual measures such as the proposition that is before us to today. That does not diminish the primary point that migration should be dealt with a national level. I fear that this move towards EU alignment will means that we will get readmission agreements only when they are agreed at EU level and we will not see the level of proactivity that should be driven at Irish Government level. The one state with which we absolutely do need a returns agreement is our nearest neighbour. The Ministers are on record as saying that between 80% and 90% of our international protection applicants actually come via that state. There has been no sense of urgency on the part of Government to deliver that. We recognise that the integrity of the immigration system depends on decisions being implemented consistently and fairly. Where an individual has been through the international protection process, has had his or her application fully and fairly assessed and has been found not to have a case for protection, it is important that returns decisions are made and that those decisions are enforced through deportations. That principle must apply to all countries, including Nigeria. The problem is that this State has had a very poor record over recent years when it comes to actually enforcing deportations, even tracking visa overstays and Government not providing or being willing to provide at least any of the data that would be necessary. That undermines the migration and international protection system system. In many cases of which we are aware, the authorities cannot say whether people subject to deportation orders have even left the State or the country at all and there is a significant disparity between the number of deportation orders actually signed and the number for which we have confirmed deportations. For example, there were 4,700 orders last year. That is the figure that Ministers will put up in lights but they do not outline that there were only 434 deportations. As of 18 September of this year, 3,381 orders were signed but there just 356 actual deportations. This proposed EU-Nigeria readmission agreement seeks to establish an agreed procedure for returns to and from Nigeria. Effective returns agreements are necessary for those who do not have a right to international protection and those who are otherwise unlawfully present in the State. To reiterate the point made by the Minister of State, these can be agreed at state level. It is not a necessity that they be done at EU level and I reiterate that we should be looking at those states that are most applicable to Ireland rather than those that might be applicable to other EU states and might become the priority of the Commission. We know that the majority of Nigerian applicants for international protection in recent years have been found not to qualify for national protection, albeit a minority has been granted protection for very obvious reasons. We have to recognise that conditions actually vary across Nigeria, which is a huge country, and that there is a necessity for each case to be assessed on its individual merits but it also remains essential that proper procedures exist to facilitate returns where an application for international protection has been returned. Supporting the returns that do not have a right to international protection does not deny the reality that in some parts of in Nigeria, there continue to be extreme levels of violence linked to Boko Haram and the jihadist militant group ISWAP and therefore it is important to remember that and give people the assurance that the policies and returns are put in place only when somebody has been through the international protection system or the cases have been assessed in the individual, where non-refoulement obligations are respected and where it has been determined that a person does not have a right to remain in the State. In this context, there is an obligation on us to ensure that there is full transparency around return decisions and proper monitoring of outcomes and accountability in terms of how these agreements are implemented. We want to ensure that we have an immigration system that is fair, rules-based and human rights-compliant and that means ensuring that those who are genuinely in need of international protection receive it, and they are treated with dignity and respect and are encouraged and supported to integrate into our society but it also means ensuring that deportations and return decisions are tracked and enforced. The biggest problem at the moment in respect of the wider international protection system is the time it takes to process applications. As I mentioned in an earlier debate, there is now a record backlog in IPAT applications. We are told that there are in excess of 21,000 appeals. That alongside the failure to monitor and enforce deportations still needs to be addressed and I urge the Government to prioritise those two issues alongside the bilateral arrangements with Great Britain that we need to see formalised. --- 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/2026-09-30/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-10-05T01:00:59+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-09-30