I thank the Minister of State for coming. It would have been much better to have the Minister from the relevant Department here because of the nature of this Commencement matter. It is pretty disappointing that the Minister is not here. Commencement matters should not be selected if the Minister in question is not available. The whole value of this was to be able to speak to someone from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Actually, I am not sure if there is much point in doing this, but anyway we are here now.

It is important that the Senator be informed if the relevant Minister is not going to be present.

I would have withdrawn this Commencement matter and submitted it at a more appropriate time with the Minister in question.

I suggest that the Senator should proceed.

The European Convention on Human Rights has played a crucial role in bringing peace to this island. It is the cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement and it is about an external mutual framework which has provided much-needed trust for communities emerging from conflict. The Irish Government has historically emphasised that any weakening of the ECHR poses a risk to the Good Friday Agreement. Irish governments have rightly been critical of the long-running campaign in Britain regarding the dilution of and withdrawing from the framework. Both the Tory and Reform parties have committed to pulling out of the ECHR and even the Labour government is debating withdrawing from certain elements of it.

Last September the Tánaiste said the ECHR's guarantees cannot be negotiated despite what some politicians might claim. Sometimes it is necessary to state the obvious. Protecting fundamental rights protects everyone. This is a sentiment I firmly agree with. However, in December last year Ireland signed the joint statement to the conference of ministers of justice at the Council of Europe which has served to blur Ireland position on the ECHR and indicates a deeply worrying shift in Irish policy. The Minister for foreign affairs has often spoken on the importance of international law and human rights, and Ireland's key role in upholding them and setting a strong example for the rest of the world. In January she said, "Accountability is important and it is absolutely imperative that the international courts are permitted to function". The Minister for justice has spoken of the need for an international human rights system. I also welcome those sentiments.

Let us not forget that Ireland has used the ECHR instruments. Both of the interstate cases Ireland has taken against the UK over the torture of the hooded men in the North in the early 1970s and the current case against the Tories' cruel legacy Act were done on the grounds of the Article 3 protections. In 2014, Ireland sought to revise the hooded men case to ensure that the threshold for torture was not undermined. Any attempts to change Article 3 provisions will damage global standards against torture and inhumane and degrading treatment for everyone.

The Good Friday Agreement relies on the ECHR and underpins peace on this island. This is why the joint statement by Ireland is so concerning for many, including IHREC and the ICCL. Even more confusing is that Ireland was once seen as a strong opponent of the Danish initiative last year but that changed in December. The joint statement seems utterly inconsistent with the previous position of the Government.

If the Minister for foreign affairs were here today, I would be asking her: what is the Government's position in the lead-up to the Moldova summit in May? What is her Department doing in the run-up to these negotiations? What position is Ireland taking on the CDDH? What will Ireland's approach be for the political declaration? The Secretary General has set out a very clear approach; will Ireland be aligning with that? Nothing in the political declaration should weaken the ECHR but some of the language being thrown around would pose significant risk to the integrity of the court and the convention. Will Ireland advocate for the protection of Article 3 and Article 8 and ensure that no measures are taken to weaken those articles? Have the Minister or her officials met IHREC, as the leading national human rights institution, to address its concerns regarding the joint statement and its recommendations on the political declaration? Has the Department responded in any way to the public submissions that IHREC has made? Critically, was an assessment made before the joint statement was signed as to the extent to which the joint statement would risk undermining Article 3 protections that have been so central to the Good Friday Agreement and the interstate cases that Ireland has taken against the UK, including the current case?

Ireland's credibility as a defender of international law is at stake. I hope we can get some much-needed clarity to allay the profound concern that many people in the human rights space have.

I am taking this matter on behalf of the Minister for foreign affairs and also justice as well. I take the point the Senator made at the outset. I will relay those points back through the system.

I want to underline Ireland’s long-standing and continued support for the European Convention on Human Rights and the role of the European Court of Human Rights as essential elements of the architecture of the rule of law in Europe. As a founding member of the Council of Europe, Ireland fully supports the Council’s essential role in promoting human rights, democracy and the rule of law across Europe. We continue to advocate for and fully respect the independence and integrity of the court.

At the same time, as the Senator will be aware, there have been growing concerns among member states of the Council of Europe about ensuring a fair and effective migration system, while fully respecting the integrity of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the universality of human rights. Consequently, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe convened an informal conference of ministers of justice of the Council of Europe on 10 December to address these concerns. During this meeting, the Minister, Deputy O’Callaghan, reaffirmed Ireland’s support for the European Convention on Human Rights and for the European Court of Human Rights as vital components of the architecture of human rights protection and the rule of law right across Europe.

On the same day as the informal meeting of justice ministers, 27 member states, including Ireland, aligned with a joint statement that was delivered to the informal meeting of justice ministers. The joint statement reflects the concerns shared by many member states regarding the challenges arising in relation to migration and seeks to ensure that the convention is understood and applied in a way that protects fundamental rights, while at the same time recognising the contemporary challenges posed by the management of migration.

The significance of the convention as a core safeguard of the Good Friday Agreement is well recognised by the Government and by the current British government. We are unwavering in our determination to maintain that support.

As the Tánaiste said in Oxford in September of last year, “The ECHR’s guarantees cannot be negotiated away”. I can confirm that this unwavering determination to maintain the convention as a safeguard of the Good Friday Agreement was to the fore in the decision-making process around Ireland joining the December joint statement. In that regard, the joint statement notes the commitment of the signatories to international law and the European Convention of Human Rights as a cornerstone of this international order and reaffirms our commitment to the convention and our support for the work and independence of the European Court of Human Rights.

We remain committed to maintaining and upholding the convention, including on the island of Ireland where it is a cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement, and respecting the vital work of the court in its efforts to uphold fundamental rights across Europe.

Ireland's decision to align with this joint statement was taken after careful consideration. The Government believes that it is important to acknowledge that the member states of the Council of Europe, including Ireland, are interested in ensuring a fair and effective migration system, while fully respecting the integrity of the convention, including the universality of human rights.

On foot of that informal conference of ministers of justice of the Council of Europe, the member states have agreed to work towards the adoption of a political declaration addressing contemporary migration challenges in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights, while ensuring full respect for the convention. This process is now being taken forward by the steering committee on human rights at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. We are following these developments extremely carefully. Ireland is actively engaged in discussions within the Council of Europe on the preparation of elements of this political declaration.

I ask the Minister of State to outline specifically and to be clear on whether Ireland will advocate for the protection of all elements of Article 3 and Article 8. We cannot pick and choose fundamental rights; they are fundamental. The Minister of State has said the Government is unwavering. There was wavering in December; the joint statement represented wavering. The Minister's comments in his speech in December regarding the need for clarity about inhumane and degrading treatment are concerning. Case law from the ECHR makes it clear that Article 3 is a non-derogable right. The court's case has established an incredibly high threshold for treatment to be considered inhumane and degrading. To amend the threshold via the proposed political declaration threatens the judicial independence of the court and erodes rights protections.

Ireland has wavered. That is why I am asking for confirmation on the exact steps Ireland will take in the run-up to the Moldova declaration. I am not clear if an assessment was made regarding the Good Friday Agreement. I know the Minister of State said the Government upholds it but I am not clear exactly what assessment of risk was taken.

The Minister for justice, when he was asked by my colleague, Deputy Gannon, could not provide any figures for the number of deportations blocked through the ECHR or the European Court of Human Rights. In regard to that migration piece in Article 3 and Article 8, they are fundamental rights and if we chip away at them, we actually do chip away at the whole international system and international law.

I can assure the Senator that the Good Friday Agreement was a very hard-fought and hard-won agreement across the island of Ireland almost 30 years ago. The Senator spoke about an assessment, and when it comes to any international agreement or anything that would undermine or challenge it, all of Government and the entire island is very mindful to ensure nothing undermines the Good Friday Agreement. The commitment from this Government and many previous Governments is that we will not undermine it. It is crucially important to maintain that.

In regard to the substantive issue of the adoption of the political declaration addressing migration, we consider that there is a need for such discussion to take place at the Council of Europe. The view is widely shared by member states. In this regard we believe that discussions on these matters can usefully be guided by the input of experts on human rights, law and migration policy who can contribute to ensuring the continued protection of human rights across Europe. We are ensuring the appropriate legal expertise is drawn upon as the discussions progress. We are also continuing to take all necessary steps to ensure the integrity of our international protection process is maintained at all times. As I explained earlier, we remain completely committed to maintaining and upholding the convention, including on the island of Ireland, where it is the cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement, and respecting the vital work of the court in its efforts to uphold fundamental rights and protection across Europe.

There are a number of other issues I will get clarity on and I will ask the Department to respond directly to the Senator.

I want to make a point for the record. It is nothing to do with the Minister of State but I understand that, under Standing Orders, I am now unable to submit a similar Commencement matter for six months. I would have withdrawn it and waited to have the Department here. It is very frustrating when the Department does not inform us in advance that not one Minister under its brief will be present to answer the questions. I do not think it respects the integrity and role of this House.

I fully support that. I have made the point on numerous occasions that if the line Minister or Minister of State is unable to attend for whatever reason that, at the very least, the Senator would be informed of that. It gives the Senator the option to withdraw the Commencement matter and resubmit it at a time when the Minister can be present. That is a very valid point.

I understand. I hear the point and I will report it back.

I thank the Minister of State.