The Government should reconsider “opting out of the majority” of the controversial EU migration and asylum pact, an Oireachtas committee has recommended.
The Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration has “serious concerns about the ability of the State to meet the commitments it is making” under the pact. It warned “failures to adhere to the commitments under the pact will result in infringements proceedings and hefty fines”.
The committee published its pre-legislative scrutiny of the International Protection Bill 2025 – the legislation to give effect to the pact – on Monday.
The Bill, which must be enacted by June to give effect to the pact, is seen as the most radical overhaul of migration and asylum policy in a generation.
READ MORE
The pact aims to harmonise legislation in the area across the EU with common border systems, swifter screening, mandatory health and security checks, biometric data sharing and a streamlined returns system.
Speaking in Dublin last week EU migration commissioner Magnus Brunner said Ireland is “very well” placed to adopt the pact.
The committee’s report raises concerns about child welfare, the rights of families, adequacy of housing provided via the International Protection Accommodation Service (Ipas) agency, safeguards for unaccompanied minors, legal advice and counselling, age assessments for unaccompanied minors and “profiteering” by private Ipas accommodation providers.
Noting Ireland has the option to opt out of the pact under protocol 21 of the Lisbon Treaty, the first of the committee’s 92 recommendations is: “opting out of the majority of the EU migration and asylum pact is reconsidered in light of changing migration landscape” between Ireland and the United Kingdom.
This is in the context of the Common Travel Area and the “unique position of Ireland” as a member state sharing a border with a non-member state.
In his foreword to the report, Cathaoirleach Matt Carthy TD, of Sinn Féin, said: “There is a concern that the [Bill] does not recognise the unique challenges that arise from this situation or take due cognisance of the view that migration matters are better dealt with by an Irish Government based on the unique circumstances in this State”.
He said the committee saw “significant gaps” in the proposed legislation and had “deep concerns about the impact that the proposed legislation” would have on “the civil legal aid scheme and on Tusla which are currently both stretched to breaking point”.
The 14-member committee raises issues with how the Bill proposes to deal with the reception and detention of some asylum seekers, how age assessments are conducted on age-disputed minors and the independence of a proposed new a chief inspector of asylum border procedures.
The report says serious concerns were raised by Tusla about immigration authorities’ “current lack of an age assessment process” where it is unclear whether a young asylum seeker is a child.
This “creates a significant possibility of adults being placed with children”, Tusla told the committee “as well as consequential safeguarding risks, and that there is a concern that, without a robust assessment process, adults may be referred to Tusla”.
The report says Tusla “emphasised ... it is outside of its statutory remit to undertake age assessments” of unaccompanied asylum seeker children. The agency wanted “sight of the full statutory process” that would set out “how immigration authorities will undertake age assessments prior” to children being referred to it for care or accommodation.
Recommendations on “safeguards when carrying out age assessments” include that there should be a multidisciplinary approach and that they “shall not be based solely on the applicant’s physical appearance or behaviour”.
