I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy McConalogue.

I welcome the Minister of State. It should be noted that twice in the past two weeks I have asked to speak to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade about this issue and the Department has not sent someone in, which is disappointing. In addition, this Commencement matter relates to the Department of justice, so there are actually six appropriate Ministers or Ministers of State who could have come to the House deal with it. I know that is nothing to with Deputy McConalogue, but I just wanted to put it on the record. It is incredibly frustrating and it suggests a lack of respect for the work that we do in this Chamber.

The Irish Government and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have historically been fair and balanced defenders of the European Convention on Human Rights, ECHR, which makes the total U-turn on the commitment to the ECHR last December deeply concerning and perplexing. When Ireland signed the joint statement to the Conference of Ministers at the Council of Europe it served to blur and totally muddy the waters on Ireland's position in relation to the ECHR. Many human rights groups including the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC are hugely worried about this quiet but insidious shift in Irish policy. The Minister for foreign affairs has often spoken about the importance of human rights and international law, with which I absolutely agree but the ECHR is fundamental to that framework.

As I said two weeks ago, Ireland has brought two interstate cases against the UK on the grounds of ECHR Article 3 protections, including the torture of the hooded men in the North and the current case against the Tories' inhumane and cruel legacy Act. Linked to that, it is utterly appalling that a letter was signed by the Irish Government indicating support for changes to Article 3 protections. This would weaken our standards in respect of torture and inhumane and degrading treatment. The entire process around the political decision to support amending elements of the ECHR was done without any meaningful public debate. Relevant stakeholders like the IHREC, the ICCL, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, CAJ, NGOs and academics have been shut out of the dialogue relating to this issue. I am deeply concerned about the complete lack of transparency regarding this policy shift on the part of the Irish Government on the question of the universality of human rights. That is why I am particularly frustrated that twice in a fortnight I have raised this and nobody from the Department has come in to respond. That is because it points to questions of transparency and accountability.

Next week, the Steering Committee for Human Rights, CDDH, will be taking dealing with the concluding stage of this. The latter is the final time Ireland can influence the text before it moves on to the next stage. The proposals put forward on the political declaration by Denmark, the UK and others are incredibly regressive in terms of the universality of human rights. They are also hugely concerning when it comes to the integrity of the Good Friday Agreement. Two weeks ago, I got a set-piece response from the Department regarding my question about whether a risk assessment was undertaken specifically in relation to the Good Friday Agreement before the December signing. Which political and civil society stakeholders did the Department meaningfully consult with as part of this risk assessment? I got no answer from the Department two weeks ago. I hope the Minister of State can give me an answer today.

Many of our EU partners, including France, Germany and Spain, did not sign the joint declaration. Why did our Government choose not to align itself with those partners? We are living through utterly terrifying times in terms of global norms being ripped apart. During times of turbulence and polarisation, we need to hold on to the legal frameworks which underpin our self-proclaimed values of human rights and dignity. We are seeing complete existential threats to our human rights systems and state inconsistencies on issues of international law. Attempts to alter the ECHR represent a retreat from the concept of the universality of human rights. Does this Government believe that all people are born equal? That is a direct question. Does the Minister of State believe that we are all born equal or do he and the Government believe that some people deserve fewer rights? Does the Minister of State believe that we should materially alter our universal human rights standards in order to send a message to people that we are not, in fact, born equal? That is what this represents.

The Government is campaigning for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, UNHRC. How does pulling out of provisions of the ECHR framework look within that context? What is the Government's position in advance of the CDDH next week? Will it commit to protecting Article 3 and Article 8 rights? Will it practice what it preaches about upholding international law and human rights? Will it meet and consult with stakeholders like the IHREC and the ICCL next week in advance of that meeting and before Ireland's contributions to the steering committee?

I thank the Senator Stephenson for raising this matter, which I am taking on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade who is unavailable. At the outset, I want to underline Ireland's long-standing and continued support for the ECHR 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, the maintaining and upholding of the convention and respect for the universality of human rights.

The significance of the convention as a core safeguard of the Good Friday Agreement is well recognised by this Government and by the British Government and we are unwavering in our determination to maintain that protection. We remain committed to maintaining and upholding the convention, including on the island of Ireland, and respecting the vital work of the court in its efforts to uphold fundamental rights and protections across Europe.

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 ECHR. Senator Stephenson referred to two convention provisions that can arise in this context, namely articles 3 and 8.

Article 3 of the convention provides that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." This prohibition is absolute. It permits no derogation.

Article 8, paragraph 1 of the convention provides that "everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence". Article 8, paragraph 2 of the convention provides that:

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

An informal ministerial conference was held in Strasbourg on 10 December 2025 to address member states' concerns about ensuring a fair and effective migration system, while fully respecting the integrity of the European Convention on Human Rights. On foot of that conference, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, on 10 December, instructed the steering committee for human rights, CDDH, to prepare elements for a political declaration reaffirming the obligation to ensure the effective enjoyment of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights to everyone within the jurisdiction of member states in the context of the contemporary challenges posed both by irregular migration and by the situation of foreigners convicted of serious offences, taking duly into account, in particular, governments’ fundamental responsibility to ensure national security and public safety. The committee furthermore invited the CDDH to report back before 22 March 2026 to allow for the ministers' deputies to finalise the declaration to be submitted, together with other relevant documents, for adoption at the 135th session of the Committee of Ministers, which is to take place in Moldova on 14 and 15 May 2026.

Ireland is following developments on this matter very carefully and is engaging constructively with other members of the Council of Europe, with a view to achieving a consensus around a political declaration fully consistent with and respectful of the convention, including the universality of human rights, the unqualified nature and non-derogable status of Article 3, and the independence of the court.

I thank the Minister of State. Can he be explicit about whether the Department and the Government will meet IHREC before those negotiations in less than two weeks? IHREC has a clear mandate in this area. It has been given that mandate by the Irish Government and has a clear interest and stake in this. I get that the Irish Government believes in the Good Friday Agreement but I did not get an answer on what consultation was done about the implications of signing a letter that would see us question Articles 3 and 8, two areas on which the Government has taken inter-state cases against the UK Government. It is absolutely absurd.

On the issue of maintaining and committing to the convention, that is not what the signature in December last year represented. It represented a significant waiver on our question of human rights. That is what is concerning.

As for contemporary challenges posed by irregular migration, France, Germany, Spain and Türkiye were not among the signatories to this letter, despite these four countries alone hosting 50% of all refugees and asylum seekers and people under temporary protection in Europe. Those four countries, the states which, objectively, have the biggest migration challenge, are not jumping on the populist bandwagon of signing this joint statement. The French ambassador at the Council of Europe described the move by the 27 signatories as "insidious" to human rights and the human rights frameworks. That is why I am concerned.

The Minister for justice, when asked by my colleague Deputy Gannon, could not provide any figures for the number of deportations blocked due to the ECHR or the European Court of Human Rights. There is no data available for that. Again, I point to the veracity of the argument around needing to sign this letter. In his speech on December, the Minister referred to the need for clarity about inhumane and degrading treatment. I do not know why we need clarity on what is torture, what is inhumane and what is degrading treatment, particularly in light of the inter-state cases we took on the hooded men. It is obscene.

I will ask the Department to respond directly to Senator Stephenson on any plans it has to engage with IHREC in advance of the meeting and also on her query in regard to previous consultations. As the Government has made very clear, Ireland's support for the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights is very strong. We see both as vital components of the European rule of law architecture. We are very conscious of the role the Council of Europe plays in promoting human rights.

Human rights are at the heart of Ireland's national policy and respect for and promotion of human rights continue to be a cornerstone of our foreign policy. We also view the European Convention on Human Rights as being at the core of human rights protection in Europe.

We will continue to engage in the ongoing discussions at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg in order to reach a consensus among member states around a political declaration. We remain committed to maintaining and upholding the convention, including on the island of Ireland where it is a core safeguard of the Good Friday Agreement, and respecting the vital work of the court in its efforts to uphold fundamental rights and protections across Europe. I thank the Senator for raising this matter.

I note the point Senator Stephenson made about the line Minister. I have written to the Cathaoirleach asking that Senators be informed if the line Minister is not available to attend.

I was informed by the Department last night. I appreciate that but the issue still stands that for two weeks in a row, we have not had suitable representation in the case of six Ministers.

That is noted.