European Union Regulations: Motion

Minister for Justice (Deputy Jim O'Callaghan)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option or discretion under Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to take part in the adoption and application of the following proposed measure:

Council Decision authorising the opening of negotiations for an agreement between the European Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on a Youth Experience Scheme,

a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 10th February, 2025.

This motion is to seek the Dáil's approval for Ireland to opt into a European Council decision authorising the opening of negotiations between the European Union and the United Kingdom on a youth experience scheme. This scheme is envisaged to facilitate travel by young people between EU member states and the UK for a wide range of purposes, including education, research, work, training, volunteering and cultural activities. We are in a lucky position in Ireland because we have the common travel area that means we are able to travel to the United Kingdom to engage in those endeavours. Other countries in the EU, however, do not have the same benefits. In this House, we are aware, and anyone who has been away as a student will be especially aware, of the benefits that come from youth experience schemes. They expose people to other cultures and working environments. It is part of learning from a rich experience of life beyond what you get in your own country. One of the downsides of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union is that it ended freedom of movement between the UK and EU member states, apart from Ireland. As a result, young people from the UK and the EU have fewer avenues available to them to gain experience abroad.

The proposed Council decision would authorise the European Commission to open negotiations - that is all it authorises - if and when the EU and the UK wish to do so, to seek agreement on a youth experience scheme that would facilitate the temporary stay of young people from the UK in an EU member state, and of their EU counterparts in the UK.

The European Union is committed to schemes that support young people's development of skills and talents through exchanges and other mechanisms across borders and beyond the EU, for example, through the Erasmus+ programme. In fairness, the UK also operates youth visa programmes with several non-EU countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The proposed negotiations would seek to provide similar opportunities for young people from member states and the UK to apply for a temporary stay in the other territory.

The proposal is very clear. It is that any agreement resulting from the negotiations would not replicate the freedom of movement which applied before Brexit. If there is political tension in respect of this issue, I suspect it will predominantly come from the United Kingdom where, as we are aware, there is significant sensitivity about the free movement of people.

Several restrictions on free movement are set out in the proposal, the details of which would be subject to negotiation with the UK. These include limitations on the age of participants. It is envisaged that people allowed to participate in this youth scheme would be between the ages of 18 and 30. There will also be limitations on the period of stay. It is proposed that, initially, it would be for one year and potentially up to three years. There would also be conditions for admission and grounds for refusal, as well as measures related to family reunification and movement between EU member states, among others.

This proposed mandate for negotiations with the UK comes in the context of a very welcome improvement in the relationship between the EU and the UK. That relationship is clearly a very important one for all of us across these islands, both in the context of our bilateral relationship with the UK as well as in the context of our shared island. It is in our national interest that the reset of the EU-UK relationship is successful and we hope for a real strengthening and deepening of co-operation between the EU and the UK. We are like-minded partners in a globally challenging context. It makes sense that we should work closely together.

It is important to point out that the past year has also seen positive momentum in the British-Irish relationship, which has improved considerably. We are all aware of the tensions that were put on that relationship as a result of Brexit. The Government is focused on renewing and furthering that momentum across the many strands of that relationship, as framed in the joint statement agreed between the then Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister in Dublin in September last year. We look forward to the upcoming summit in March between Prime Minister Starmer and the Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin. The fundamental importance of this relationship is reflected in the extent of our people-to-people links, our historic ties and our distinctly and mutually beneficial common travel area arrangement.

Due to the common travel area, it is important to be clear that the proposed youth experience scheme would not have any impact at all on the movement of young Irish and UK citizens between Ireland and the UK. Irish and British people already benefit from significant rights of free movement between our two countries, and the Commission proposal underlines that any agreement on a youth experience scheme should be without prejudice to the common travel area. Another reason that we should participate in these negotiations is to ensure that we protect the benefits that derive from our membership of the common travel area with the UK. Such a scheme would, however, improve opportunities for young EU citizens resident in Ireland to gain experience in the UK. EU member states have keenly felt the loss of these opportunities for their young citizens. The same is true of young people in the UK, who now also have the prospect of once again enjoying the richness of the European experience, which they lost, regrettably, as a result of Brexit.

Opting in to this proposal would show solidarity with our EU partners, and our British friends, in this respect, on an issue of importance to them and to their citizens. We should also recall the co-operation we received from our EU partners during the Brexit negotiations. Consequently, it is appropriate that we support them in their pending negotiations with the United Kingdom.

This proposal has a Title V legal basis. That means it is in the area of freedom, security and justice under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which means that, unlike other member states, Ireland is not automatically bound by measures in this area. Instead, we have the right to decide whether to opt in to that treaty under Protocol 21. Opting in to this proposal would be consistent with our declared commitment to participating in Title V measures wherever possible, and a demonstration of our pledge to protect and promote EU values in the area of freedom, security and justice.

The Houses' approval at this stage, before the decision has been adopted by the European Council, which is expected to happen in the coming weeks, would enable Ireland to opt in under Article 3 of Protocol 21 and to take a full part in the Council decision and vote on the negotiating mandate. The three-month period for an opt-in under Article 3 of the protocol expires on 11 March, which explains the urgency of bringing the motion before the House and the Seanad. If we were to opt in after the decision has been adopted, under Article 4 of the protocol, we would not have a vote on this proposal. I reiterate that this mandate relates simply to the potential opening of negotiations. It is not about finalising any deal; it is simply stating that we want to participate in those negotiations should the EU and the UK wish to do so. It does not entail a commitment by Ireland to any agreement that may be reached. Any agreement resulting from these negotiations would need to be subject to a separate opt-in procedure at the time, once the details are known.

It is important for Ireland to opt in to this initial Council decision to ensure our full participation in any negotiating mandate. We can then actively ensure that the rights of Irish citizens within the common travel area are fully protected, as the decision sets out. Opting in would also demonstrate solidarity with our EU partners and our commitment to EU values, as well as Ireland's support for the strongest possible relationship between the EU and the UK.

Opting in would not bind Ireland to any agreement resulting from negotiations, but would simply allow us to participate in, and to have a vote on, the decision to authorise them. If negotiations were to result in an agreement with the UK, the Houses of the Oireachtas would then have a further opportunity to consider whether to opt in to that agreement. We will come back to the Houses in respect of that, should there be agreement on a scheme. I commend the proposal to the House. I thank Deputies for their consideration. I will listen carefully to what those contributing to the debate have to say.

Deputy Matt Carthy

I am sharing with Deputy Ó Murchú.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Matt Carthy

This is my first opportunity to engage with the Minister in the House, so I congratulate him on his appointment.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the proposal to opt in to the negotiating mandate of the EU-UK youth experience scheme, one proposed by the European Commission in April of last year to facilitate youth mobility and make it easier for young people from the EU and Britain, respectively, to study, work and live in Britain and the EU as the case may be.

I support the proposal to opt in to the negotiation process at this stage, essentially so that Ireland can play a role as an EU member state in shaping the Commission's negotiating mandate. While this is largely going to be a matter between the EU and Britain, it is right that Ireland would opt into any negotiation that could have an impact on this State, even if it has been stated explicitly at this point that any agreement would be without prejudice to the common travel area. Because of the Border and the unique position of the North and the common travel area, the priority in these instances must always be to protect Irish interests, the special position of the North, and Irish sovereignty in any negotiations taking place between the EU and the British Government.

Britain and its political parties and its body politic are still dealing with the fallout and political implications of the decision to leave the European Union. As a result, the prospect of this proposal moving forward is unclear, in particular given the initial response of the main British parties to the Commission's announcement. The proposal was rejected entirely by the then Conservative government and by the Labour Party, who were still in opposition at that point. They described the youth mobility scheme as synonymous with freedom of movement. In Ireland, we are also dealing with the challenges created by Brexit, nowhere more so than in the North, which was dragged out of the EU against the wishes of the majority of voters in the Six Counties. We cannot say that often enough. This has had many consequences, some of which were mitigated in the course of the withdrawal agreement, but others still have to be ironed out and some will only be addressed once we achieve a united Ireland.

The departure of Britain from the EU brought the debate on Irish unity to the fore, North and South. Importantly, during the Brexit negotiations European leaders unanimously approved the commitment guaranteeing that the North could rejoin the European Union as part of a united Ireland.

What we are missing now is an Irish Government that will proactively work to make Irish unity a reality, to plan, prepare and ensure that successful referenda take place by the end of the decade. The situation where Ireland is both a member of the European Union and part of a common travel area with Britain, which is outside the EU, presents very unique challenges, particularly in the area of migration. Those challenges, along with the need to protect Irish sovereignty, were the key reasons Sinn Féin opposed opting in to the EU asylum and migration pact entirely. Sinn Féin has argued, and it is worth repeating, that in order to deal with the challenges of managing migration as an EU state that is also part of the common travel area with Britain, the one-size-fits-all approach of the EU pact is not appropriate for Ireland. We need to have flexibility to operate a migration system that recognises our particular realities. For example, there is a need for bilateral arrangements with Britain, with parallel legislation, to provide more objective and clearly delineated criteria for determining responsibility for the processing of international protection applicants between both states and for immigration management at ports and airports.

One specific and urgent issue that we must address is that relating to the accommodation recognition payment for Ukrainians who are in Ireland under the temporary protection directive, particularly in the context of plans by the British Government to make changes shortly to its analogous homes for Ukrainians scheme. The accommodation recognition payment scheme for Ukrainians has created serious problems of unfairness in the private rented sector here. In many areas, including my own, where rents have been traditionally lower than in large urban centres, it is placing families and those seeking to rent private accommodation at a severe disadvantage because landlords are able to get €800 tax free through the accommodation recognition payment. The end result of this is that people cannot find places to rent in their own home towns. This issue is growing in many parts of rural constituencies in particular, and is creating a tension that we, quite frankly, could do without. Sinn Féin has called for the ending of the accommodation recognition payment because of the severe problems it is creating. I look forward to an early pronouncement from the Minister and the Government on how they intend to move forward as the scheme is due to lapse in a number of weeks. Given the common travel area and the plans by the British Government to cut payments under the comparable homes for Ukrainians scheme from £500 to £350, it is urgent that we deal with this matter. I urge the Minister to address this issue without delay and to set out the preparations he is undertaking for the ending of the temporary protection directive next year.

Brexit has had a particular impact on Ireland. Schemes like the one we are discussing will not always affect us directly. In fact, one of the ambitions of an Irish interaction with the EU-UK youth experience scheme is that it does not have implications for this State but we absolutely agree that it is important that Irish voices are at the table to ensure that is the case. We absolutely agree that we need to move forward, beyond Brexit and beyond the narrow-mindedness of those campaigners who brought about that decision, particularly those who did so using very dubious arguments. We are in a position to be a constructive and positive voice at the table. Only time will tell whether others will approach this so constructively and positively.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

I take the opportunity to wish the Minister well. There is no shortage of issues to deal with, whether we are talking about justice or migration. In fairness, the Minister has already said that there is much work to be done to put a proper migration management system in play.

We are still dealing with the outworkings of Brexit and the outworkings for Ireland of partition, a constant evil that will not be dealt with until we have a united Ireland. We need a Government that is going to take the necessary moves or we will constantly be dealing with anomalies like this. I believe everyone here is supportive of opting into negotiations on a youth experience scheme. Everyone understands the idea behind these youth mobility and experience schemes. First and foremost, they are about mobility but they are also about experience, opportunities and skills and can be particularly beneficial for those from disadvantaged areas. That is a piece of work that needs to be done, above and beyond this scheme. I would also highlight the fact that there is real work to be done on youth diversion. We are all aware of the huge issues of crime, drugs and youths becoming involved and anything that can be done from a diversion point of view should be done. In that context, I commend the work that is done by the High Voltage youth diversion team that works out of a house in Cox's Demesne and the diversion team working in Muirhevnamore, Dundalk. While steps have been taken with regard to early intervention, from my point of view they are not early enough and there also have to be wider interventions involving families as well. We also need mental health and addiction supports, which are sadly lacking at this point in time. I would also commend the work that has been done lately by An Garda Síochána. I have played, very badly, in the Garda late night leagues, run in tandem with Dundalk FC. It is great for everyone, apart from anyone who got a bad tackle from me but I do not think there were cameras involved and nobody has made any complaints at this point in time. We are talking here about stuff that has a real impact on young people's lives and gives them an opportunity. Beyond that, we have the Greentown project. We have seen that in operation in several places and we know it is being rolled out across the State. We need to see more of this. The idea is to engage with those young people who have fallen into criminal activity and who are being used and abused by criminals and drug dealers and facilitate removing them from that situation. We all know of the high costs, both socially and from a monetary point of view, in relation to that.

We have a particular issue in relation to safety. I refer here to disorganised, chaotic crime, often related to mental health issues, that sometimes falls to gardaí who do not have the capacity to deal with it. We do not necessarily have the framework to deal with this. I know this crosses into the jurisdiction of others but it is an issue that needs to be looked at in the context of safety.

Deputy Alan Kelly

Before I commence, I wish to formally wish the Minister the very best of luck.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

Thank you,

Deputy Alan Kelly

I have already done so informally. He is very capable and very knowledgeable on his subject matter. I look forward to working with him, as does the Labour Party, across a wide range of issues. This is probably the least contentious issue related to the Department that we will discuss in the Chamber. I hope that, starting afresh, the Department will be far more transparent and open and that the Minister will take proposals, ideas and information from myself and other Opposition speakers seriously and in a way that is seen to be for the good of us all. There needs to be a significant change in the way Opposition and the Government works when it comes to justice matters, An Garda Síochána, our Courts Service and immigration. The Minister has the capacity to change that now and I hope he does so.

This proposal, which we must sign off on before 11 March, is a good one. I think it will be supported by the whole House. The UK has a number of proposals like this with other countries, including Canada. This is very much a toe-in-the-water proposal however. It is really about politics in the UK rather than whether this is a good idea. This is a good idea but immigration numbers in the UK are still on the way up so how this is plays out in the UK will determine the prospects of this scheme, rather than whether the EU will agree to it. The EU will agree to it. Of course it will but it is very important that we are there at the outset.

This is because of the fact that as a country, with our common travel area we are seen to be very progressive. We need to protect that. We also need to be there at the outset of this to show how enthusiastic we are. The fact that there is not this capacity for young people from the UK to share experiences outside of this jurisdiction when they could formerly go to the rest of Europe, is a bad thing. It also works vice versa. More travel and experience, educationally and every other way is very beneficial to everybody involved and it does cross over to us, as a result. When it comes to the latter components of this and we are only signing up to this to start a process, rather than conclude one, it will all have to come back and we will all have to discuss whatever comes up again. There is sensitivity around it. I noticed that the name has been changed. My research shows it used to be called the youth mobility scheme. It is now called the youth experience scheme. We all know that the bottom line here is that from a UK perspective this is how a Labour Government over there is going to get this through without opening up a can of worms regarding Brexit and the movement of people and the common travel area. It is as simple as that. Hopefully, with our support and acting as we do at a European level in a very progressive way, we will be able to get to a point where the UK will work with us on this. Whether it will set out to be an agreement with a proposed three or four year limit or whether it has conditions on the type of travel that will be associated under this scheme; whether it will be used for longer periods for study and lesser periods for work; or whether it will have some other limitations, remains to be seen. I would guess that is probably going to happen. I would guess that there will be some changes in it but maybe, as part of the negotiations, there could be a phasing in of it as well. That is something we could propose that would help along the way, given the way the EU supported us through Brexit and the way Britain is so important to us from a travel point of view in terms of shared experiences. We should do whatever we can to support this and ensure it is delivered as quickly as possible.

Deputy Gary Gannon

I support this motion and I will continue to do so as it progresses through the Dáil because it is about giving young people back the opportunities that they lost after Brexit. Regardless of what the scheme is called, whether it is the UK-EU youth experience or otherwise, it actually enables the British Labour Party to find its courage and recognise swiftly and loudly that Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster. For years, young people from the EU and Britain could easily move between countries for work, study and just to experience life somewhere new. That was normal and then Brexit came along; suddenly things that used to be straightforward became a bureaucratic nightmare. For many it is too expensive or too complicated and it is simply not worth the hassle. The proposed scheme is a chance to fix that. It would allow young people from the EU and the UK to spend time in each other's countries with fewer restrictions. For Irish people, the common travel area already covers a lot of this but it does not help everyone. There are people in Ireland who are EU nationals who grew up, studied and built their lives here but who do not have automatic rights in the UK. This scheme would open doors for them too and that could only be a positive thing. This is not just about what Ireland gets out of it. It is about making sure that young people from the UK can also come here to work and contribute to the country. Immigration should not be seen as a problem to be managed. It is an opportunity and an initiative like this allows people to start that process at a younger age. People brings skills, ideas and energy and this is about making it easier for them to do so in a fair and structured way. That said, we of course need to keep an eye on the details. For example, this scheme cannot just be for the wealthy. The last thing we need is a system where only those who can afford high visa fees or prove that they have thousands in a bank account, can get access. That is not mobility; that is just about protecting and enhancing privilege. If we are opting in - and I hope we are - we need to push for a deal that is fair for all young people, not just for those more privileged. Ireland has a long history of people leaving for work, study or a fresh start. We know the value of mobility because we have lived it as part of our story. Brexit was a bad deal for young people and while we cannot undo it, we can at least make things a bit easier. The progression of this motion is a step in the right direction. It is about keeping options open and opportunities alive and making sure that young people do not lose out because of political decisions they had no say in. As the scheme progresses I hope it strengthens and gives everyone an opportunity to travel in the way that was previously the case before the unmitigated Brexit disaster.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett

I am happy to support this motion for Ireland to opt in to the negotiating mandate on the EU-UK youth experience scheme. It is worth noting that the consequences of the anti-immigrant sentiment that drove the right wing campaign in the UK against the EU are now becoming apparent. It should be a salutary warning to people who want to go down the road of anti-immigration that it comes back to bite you in all sorts of ways. From an economic point of view, the UK has not thrived as a result of the Brexit decision. David Ricardo an economist of pro-market inclination and Karl Marx, a classical 19th-century economist, both agreed that all wealth derives from human labour. Something that the anti-immigrant brigade does not seem to understand is that human beings are needed to make a society and an economy prosper. Part of that is the experience of travelling abroad, learning from other people, interacting with different cultures, different types of societies and different economic models. People learn from these experiences and everybody is enriched by them. Thankfully, there is some recognition here that young people in Britain are losing out as a result of not having that freedom to move around Europe to work, study and to interact with other cultures and societies. There is evidence that the UK has benefited nothing and has almost certainly lost out as a result of adopting this anti-immigrant position. When they get into this anti-immigrant mentality, people should consider whether they really want such a situation. These things have knock-on consequences. Other countries in Europe are threatening to go down the road of this anti-immigrant politics. It can have a domino effect where eventually it could come back to bite us as well, in terms of the ability of our young people to travel. As has been said, we have a long history and tradition of our people going all over the world to work, study or simply to travel and meet other peoples, cultures and societies. Do we really want our young people to face that anti-immigrant sentiment that certain political forces are trying to whip up? It will happen if we give succour to this.

Some examples are a little bit of a warning on another level to us. In recent years, I have been amazed by the number of young people who are going to study in the Netherlands. At one level, it is a very good thing that young people do so. However, I am also wondering why they are going to the Netherlands to study. The reason they give is that there are no fees for a master's degree in the Netherlands. Here, a master's degree costs €6,000 per year. In the Netherlands students can also find affordable accommodation. As well as wanting our young people and young people generally to have the right to travel, work and study abroad, we might also want to be encouraging people to stay here or even people to come here to work and study and so on, when we consider the shortages in all sorts of areas such as the health service and education. However, we are putting barriers in their way because we have excessive fees for master's degrees and postgraduate studies.

These are barriers to people moving around and, ultimately, they are having a negative impact on our ability to function as an economy and society. For example, a lot of our young artists go to Britain because the conditions for performers, actors, directors and so on are better in Britain than they are here. As the Equity union has pointed out again and again, the UK has a decent agreement between Equity and film and other arts producers, so our talent are leaving because they are on substandard, often crappy, precarious contracts here. We should think about making Ireland a bit more attractive for our young people as well.

Deputy Barry Heneghan

I wish the Minister the best of luck in his new role. I am very happy to see this motion, which holds substantial implications for our nation's youth and the broader European community. I will focus on the benefits, such as cultural enrichment. By embracing this scheme, the Irish youth will have unparalleled opportunities to experience life. They have always been in the UK and fostering a mutual understanding will strengthen the historical bonds we share. The educational opportunities are also significant for the young people I know. Equalised tuition fees will make UK institutions more accessible to Irish students, broadening their academic horizons. Another significant aspect relates to the economic advantages, facilitating the movement of young professionals. Many of my friends are living in London, and I believe this will address the labour market needs in sectors experiencing shortages.

Opting in to these negotiations is not merely about facilitating movement. It is about reaffirming our commitment to the youth of Ireland and providing them with avenues to grow, learn and contribute positively to our society. I am glad we are seizing this opportunity to invest in the future of our nation.

Before Brexit, 12,000 Irish students enrolled in UK universities annually, with more than 30,000 Irish moving to the UK. The barriers that arose after Brexit need to be removed. Many young people still find it hard to access opportunities, leading them, as I mentioned, to go to London, Manchester or Liverpool. We have cultural and educational ties with the UK and I support the positives of this scheme. The exchange of language, culture and shared history means the Irish community has always played a key role in the UK, and this scheme will ensure that continues. The Irish community is the UK's largest diaspora population and this scheme will ensure young Irish citizens can still freely strengthen that link. The safeguards that are in place will ensure balance and fairness. I reiterate that this is not an open door policy. There will be clear eligibility criteria to ensure a balanced approach to youth mobility. The UK has similar agreements, which I have recently seen, with countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. These have proven a success, and I hope the Minister will look at these successful cases and implement the key steps they have taken. I hope the scheme will ensure equal access to education for Irish citizens, which we are going to need.

The scheme is not just about facilitating movement; it is about investing in the future. We have always been outward looking, and this is about embracing opportunity and ensuring our young people can contribute to the global stage. I am fully in support of the motion. Ireland needs to remain connected, competitive and committed to empowering the next generation.

Minister for Justice (Deputy Jim O'Callaghan)

I thank the Deputies for their contributions, which I listened to carefully, and for their best wishes on this, the first day on which I am dealing with a debate in the House as Minister for Justice. I also wish Deputy Carthy well in his position as Opposition spokesperson on justice and, indeed, Deputy Kelly. I do not have all the answers in respect of justice issues and I do not think the House would expect me to. I will be very open to listening to ideas from Opposition Members and I am happy to go along with what Deputy Kelly suggested, by which I mean I am going to try to be as transparent as possible and try to freely set out what the issues are and where the problems are. I will listen carefully to any suggestions I get from anyone in the House, whether Government backbenchers or members of the Opposition, and I am happy to work with colleagues in that regard.

Deputy Carthy is right when he says this proposal is a further consequence of Brexit. Brexit was an extraordinary event for this island and in the relationship between Ireland and the United Kingdom. We are still dealing with the consequences of it. It is clearly the case Brexit is not going to be reversed in the short term. If it is going to be reversed at some stage, that is a long way down the road, so we have to deal with the issues we have here now. This is a good proposal. As a number of colleagues mentioned, all that is being proposed is that we will have an opportunity to opt in such that we can negotiate in respect of a future agreement between the EU and the UK. I do not think anyone here is opposed to that and I welcome the support across the House.

Everyone here is politically sophisticated enough to know that the contentious issues here will arise on the British side. Deputy Kelly was correct when he said this was originally referred to as a youth mobility scheme. The word "mobility" was dropped and replaced by “experience”. The British Government has stated that although it has no plans for a youth mobility scheme, it will consider proposals in accordance with its red lines on free movement. I think Deputies are very much aware that the issue of the freedom of movement of people is a highly contentious and sensitive issue within the United Kingdom. Fortunately, we have not reached the same levels of concern or anxiety that exist in the UK in respect of the free movement of people, and I hope we will not.

Deputy Carthy also spoke about the common travel area. The common travel area is a great advantage we have whereby Irish citizens can move freely between the UK and Ireland. We want to preserve that, and part of the reason we want to be part of these negotiations is in order that when the EU and the UK are negotiating, Ireland's position and the benefits of the common travel area will be well respected. A consequence of the common travel area, which I do not think we can deny because it is clearly the case, relates to migration. I think Deputy Carthy mentioned that, obviously, it is difficult to control migration in the context of the common travel area, but those are just challenges we are going to have to deal with until such time as matters change.

Deputy Carthy also spoke about the accommodation recognition payment, on which he sought a reply. I am aware of that and have been briefed on it, and a decision will have to be made on it soon. It does not relate to my Department but to the other Department, given the function is being transferred over by the Department under the former Minister, Deputy O'Gorman. I am aware of it and of the issues the Deputy referred to, which I note.

I also note the comments of Deputy Ó Murchú, who, while not a justice spokesperson, always spoke very authoritatively any time I participated as a backbencher in a debate on a justice issue. He referred to the youth diversion programme and the mental health of individuals who come before the criminal justice system, on which I agree. I visited Cloverhill Prison last week and it clearly tends to be the case, which will not be a revelation to anyone in this House, that in respect of certain offences, individuals can have serious mental health challenges. A question that arises concerns where the services are going to come from to deal with those mental health challenges. I am pleased to say services are being provided in our Prison Service, although in certain instances or for certain persons, that may not be appropriate.

Deputy Gannon said he hoped the British Labour Party would wake up and recognise that Brexit has been a disaster for the UK. I am not going to comment on anything to do with the British Government, although Deputy Gannon is perfectly entitled to his position. All I would say is it is clearly the case that many young people in Britain wish to avail of what was formerly the Erasmus+ scheme, whereby they could move to other European Union countries.

I note the support in this House for those younger UK citizens so they can continue to do so.

I listened carefully, as I always do, to Deputy Boyd Barrett. He mentioned how all wealth derives from human labour. That was the ideology of Mr. Marx and Mr. Ricardo. We need to add something to that now - to a large extent, wealth can derive from technology. That will become more apparent in the 21st century whereby technology is getting the benefits of vast wealth for certain individuals. We need to keep eye on that.

I also thank Deputy Heneghan for his contribution. It is important that we hear young voices in the House. He will be aware, as many of us were in the past, of the huge benefits derived from young people travelling throughout Europe. It is a fantastic continent. It is a huge benefit for the citizens of European countries to be able to travel around for the purpose of experiencing the cultural richness of other countries. We all did it as younger people. I would like to see it available for the citizens of EU member states and the United Kingdom.

I thank all Members for their contributions. Now, we have to go to the Seanad, which I think will be done next week. If we can opt in, negotiations will begin between the Commission and the United Kingdom. I hope it will be the case that we can reach agreement in this respect so there is this youth experience scheme. If we get agreement, we will be back before this House which will then have to approve it.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 5.12 p.m. and resumed at 5.15 p.m.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Feb 2025