Jim O'Callaghan: We made a bad decision on the presidency

It's Tuesday, December 16th, and you're very welcome to the Inside Politics Podcast from The Irish Times. I'm Hugh Linnahann. Yesterday, patty he and myself were joined in studio by Fienafol's Minister for Justice Jim O'Callahan. We spoke to the minister about a range of different subjects, including migration, security, and the future of Fienafol's leadership. But first we asked him about the response to the attack on Bondi Beach and anti-Semitism in Ireland, and also the progress of the occupied territories bill. We hope you enjoy this conversation. Minister, you're very welcome. Thanks very much, Hugh. And, Minister, the Irish Times today reports that guard security is being increased at Jewish events around the country following the appalling attack. Bondi Beach yesterday, what's the level of threat against Jewish people in Ireland? And was the Chief Rabbi correct this morning when he set it against the backdrop of a real problem of anti-Semitism in this country? Well, the attack yesterday in Bondi Beach was horrific people were targeted because they were Jewish. It was a murderous anti-Semitic attack. And obviously, the same shock waves around the world, particularly within the Jewish community. I spoke to the Guardic Commissioner yesterday. Obviously, I get close and frequent updates on security in the country. An issue I had been concerned about previously, even before Bondi was the potential threshold to members of the Jewish community in Ireland. I'd been given updates from the Commissioner in respect to that previously I got an update from him yesterday. And has it increased? I don't believe there is any intelligence suggesting it has increased or no, it hasn't increased. But I suppose when you see what happened yesterday, there has to be heightened vigilance on the part of the Guardi and indeed governments to ensure that people are protected. And what would you make of the Chief Rabbi's point? Well, it has frequently been stated that anti-Semitism is on the rise globally and regressively. I think that probably is the case. Whenever we have a discussion about anti-Semitism in an Irish context or in other contexts, unfortunately, it gets associated with Irish government policy and respect of Israel. And the most important thing to emphasize is that Jewish people in Ireland or in other countries are not responsible for the actions of the Israeli government, that's just about the thought of something that didn't need to be said, but I have to say it. But I would be concerned if the Chief Rabbi is stating there has been a rise in anti-Semitism and that is something we have to confront like if history teaches us anything. It is the dangers and crimes that can arise and respond to a rise in anti-Semitism. Do you accept though that actions like or proposed actions like the Occupied Territories bill are seen in some international quarters, particularly in the United States as evidence of anti-Semitic policy in Ireland or an anti-Semitic approach by the Irish government? I think that is an unfair charge path. I think obviously if you look at the Occupied Territories bill, it's a piece of legislation which I think is intellectually justified if there are areas that are occupied and international law says they shouldn't be occupied. So I think there's a perfectly legitimate policy reason behind a proposal such as that. Obviously, however, you'd want to be asleep not to realize that there is a strong charge being made against Ireland from people who may have maligned intention outside of here, but also some individuals who are concerned about what they're hearing. So it's important for me, as Minister for Justice, it's important for the government to state that we are absolutely committed to preserving, protecting the Jewish community in Ireland. They've a long distinguished history in Ireland, particularly in my own constituency where there are synagogues, where there are schools. You know, it's a fantastic history, even in terms of politically, you look at Ben Briscoe and my own party, Alan Chatter and Finnegale, Mervyn Taylor and Labour, Herzog was referred to as the Sinn Fein Rabbi, that they played a huge role in Irish society and I think it's important that we do not allow issues in respect of modern policies of Israel to get wrapped up in ensuring that we protect these valuable Irish people. The support over the weekend that Minister for European Affairs has said that that services will not be included in the Occupy Territories Bill, is that your understanding? Yeah, we mean to be honest with you, because it's a department, a foreign affairs proposal and it's been worked on within the department. It doesn't come across my desk in Justice, it'll be Frank, which I have enough of my desk in Justice, dealing with legislation that I'm trying to prepare myself. But isn't government as indication that, you know, we will progress the Occupy Territories Bill. People need to realize it is sensitive and it is complicated and obviously any Irish government when introducing legislation, it must also take into account Ireland's interests in terms of what's the consequence of this legislation from Ireland's perspective. So we need to just be conscious of that and I'm also aware that, like internationally, like the perception of Ireland internationally is that we are very strong in seeking to defend the rights of Palestinian people, whilst also acknowledging the Zionist position that Israel has a right to exist, anyone who believes in a two-state solution is Zionist. And like we need to get away from, regarding as acceptable, language that seeks to challenge the existence of Israel. But it is a complicated issue and it is an issue that the government, I think, is dealing with sensitively, like the main opponents of the Irish government's policy and respect of Israel and Palestine, or the Israeli government, and the opposition within all there. And, like internationally, we're perceived as being fair players. And can I turn to a kind of broader questions of Irish national security in a changing world that the incident with the drones of Dublin Bay in advance of the Zelensky visit and the kind of stories which have come out since do not shed a very flattering light on Ireland's preparedness for the threats that exist to our national security in the 2020s? Well, we're not unusual in being subject to this type of drones attack. We've seen it in Brussels, we've seen it in Copenhagen. I was at a meeting of the Justus and Home Affairs ministers in Brussels last Monday. One of the big topics of conversation was the increased use of drones by Russia within a European Union territory. So it's not something unique to Ireland, it's not as though the individuals who may have been responsible for this said, "Oh, this in Ireland is a self-touch. This is a problem that's permeating throughout the European Union." You exactly. It was probably Russia. I haven't got a definitive response. My own view is it was individuals perpetrated by an entity that was, you know, was contrary to the interests of the EU and Ukraine. But it did shed light, did it not, a country which has no proper form of electronic identification of these. We gathered, they were identified with the nature of I. We had leaks about disagreements between the guardian and the defence forces on whether the correct procedures were followed in reaction to this threaten. You know, story after story about the nature of the equipment on board, on board the ship. I know that's the responsibility of the Department of Defence, but Defence and Justice are kind of entwined in this, are they? With the European presidency coming up next year, are we in a position to defend ourselves against these kinds of this kind of hybrid warfare? Yes, we are. And I think we get good cooperation and we have a lot of collaboration with our European counterparts. I know it's a huge task for the Guardian, the EU presidency. I know they've been out in Copenhagen, they've been in other countries as great as I say, collaboration between the Guardian and other forces as well. It is obviously a matter of concern. What happened? Obviously we do need to increase our defence spending. The Guardian have good anti-drone technology, probably wasn't in terms of its operability, in terms of where those drones were, as you'd see, Guardian weren't able to engage with it there. The fact that we're only observed with a naked eye because there was no equipment to observe in the ocean. The fact that the armaments which were available we gather are at least 50 years old in our second hand on that ship. We need to spend more money on our defence here, there's no doubt about that. And as opposed for years we've perceived, I'm not criticizing people, there was a perception actually. Who's going to really want to attack Ireland? It's not clearly the case that there are international players out there who will want to target Ireland and we need to increase our capacity to defend against that. The five financial times got a major feature on this a couple of weeks ago where a number of people described Ireland as freeloading on European partners. I think that's unfair and I don't get that when I'm out at Justice and Home Affairs meetings. We're entitled to be militarily neutral, as is Austria, as is Malta, so we're not unique within the European Union. I don't believe. We spend less than nearly anybody else. But we're not a member of NATO and I suppose it isn't a matter for ourselves to determine how much we, as a country, wish to spend on defence spending. My own view is we need to spend more, Minister Mackenzie is committed to doing that as well. Obviously the world is changing, we need to recognise the threats to which Ireland is exposed, not just in terms of the area of drones, but also in terms of cyber security as well. So we need greater investment in our defence technology, we're no longer in a position where nobody's interested in us, our success and prominence in the world means individuals. And we may be neutral, but we're not entirely isolated, we have allies in the European Union. We have responsibilities to them as they have to us in situations like this presidency next year. So do you see more cooperation and increased cooperation across the European Union on these matters? Well, certainly in respect of drones, I would see more cooperation as I said to you. There were discussed last Monday, out in Brussels, but I don't get time defence, Sonders East cables protection. Yeah, we certainly need to invest more in it, but it's the same with other countries as well. Like other countries are up in their defence expenditure. I suppose the increased trash from Russia since 2022 is making most countries within the European Union, particularly those on the Eastern flank, invest much greater amounts in defence. You will have to get very significant help from some EU partners to defend presidency events, won't you? I don't want to get into the detail, like I get constant briefings from the Guard, the Commissioner. The Guardi are very well prepared for the presidency. A lot of money is being put into it in terms of the technology that's available to the Guardi. It is very satisfied with your technology. It's not unusual for there to be cooperation between EU member states and other member states around issues such as the presidency. Can I ask you something about the job as a whole? I mean, you had a very successful career at the bar, you were a backbench TD for eight years or so, and you became a minister in January with responsibility for a vast interlinked web of very large agencies that employ thousands, if not tens of thousands of people, Guardi, prison servers, officials, public servants of one sort or another. And your life up to the nose is essentially as either a sole trader or a very small business, which was yourself. In any other walk of life, either in the public or private sector, somebody who had to take on those responsibilities would be expected to have had a lot more experience in management, large organizational theory, structures, organizational structure. Do you ever feel a bit of imposter syndrome? Well, sometimes I feel imposter syndrome, but not necessarily just in the job as minister for justice, but I have to say to you that it's democracy. We could get in the head of the cybersecurity unit and the head of intelligence and make them minister for justice or somebody who's completely proficient in policing throughout the world. But we've a requirement that in order to be a minister, you have to be a member of the Eroctus, to them can be from the Senate, but otherwise you have to be elected to all everyone. And I think it is a very good system that somebody who has political responsibility for all these important issues and who's accountable is a person who can be thrown out in terms of at the next general election or reelected again. I think I can safely say this podcast is totally in favor of democracy. But there are challenges, aren't there? What's going to be looking in the system, you know, in the Western Churchill, you know, it's not a great system, but you know, look at the alternative system, in France or in the United States of America, where people are appointed purely on the basis of the choice of the head of the executive and they can have great expertise, they can be financial wizards, we've seen great treasury secretaries with great records, appointing the United States, they've turned out to be disastrous. So just because you're very proficient in particular arcane discipline, doesn't mean you're going to make a very good politician. I'm reminded of the fact that I think in Harold Wilson's government, there were more double-firsts from Oxbridge and Andy Oder Cabinet. It was a pretty bad government in the 1970s, you know? Just to make it more specific then, I just wonder about a problem like the one that was identified in the report during the summer on the way in which members of the Guardiagia Conna were essentially avoiding, evading, failing to do their duties when it came to traffic enforcement. It was pretty appalling, this stuff, which was painted by that report. And that is a problem of culture and management and organisation and responsibility, isn't it? Yeah, it was a very serious report, the Crow report. It did, however, say, that the majority of Guardi and the roads policing units were a productive professional and focused on improving road safety, but now it's sounding that there was a. What frightened me about it was the fact that members of the force were so open and accepting that there weren't bothered to do their job. But in terms of. I think it is important that there is a person who's politically accountable for that. That is me. I know that the Guardiagia Commissioner is responding to it based on his own desire, obviously, but also my instruction to say, "Well, what are you doing in response to this?" A steering group has been established to implement the findings in the Crow report. But like, you're better off, I think, having a politician at the top of a department, such as the department of justice, who is politically accountable for all these different lines that come down or these different statutory bodies that are under my control. There may be an argument for saying we need more cabinet ministers, but the constitution limits it to 15. That's why I suppose just home affairs and migration are within one department, within one minister. Like, ultimately, if you've only 15 senior ministers, you've got to ensure that the broad range of government and responsibilities are represented within those 15. Doesn't that mean that you can sometimes be held accountable for things that you have very discontrolled? Yeah, it does. Like, in terms of. I'm dependent upon information. I guess, when I'm answering questions in the door, if there's a question about the guarantee, I'm dependent upon the guarantee given me the information. But I'm politically accountable if incorrect information is given, you know? But that's the life of politics. I think it's not a bad system, though, you can understand what you say. You know, we'd be better off to have somebody who's completely expert in security or in policing. Or you'd want to have a lot of broad expertise is here. I don't think you could get one person who's going to be expert in everything that comes within the responsibility. Well, I think management of large organisations and understanding. A kind of deep understanding of organisational structures would help, wouldn't it? Well, all that's said is there's one of the things I've become aware of since going into the department is there is an outstanding civil service within the department of justice. Like, I'm not running managing the department on a day-to-day basis. That is done by the excellent secretary general, Unamek Phillips. And there's a whole range of responsibilities that are delegated out. One of the things I am enormously pleased with is the extent and the manner in which decisions are presented to me to be made. I get very detailed documentation through e-submissions, which sets out a variety of options. It'll give me a lot of paper to read, and then it'll set out the decision that I need to make. And it'll show how that decision has progressed its way up from, say, the assistant principal to the principal officer at the assistant secretary deputy secretary general. So, it's a very well-run department. I'm not responsible for running the management of the department on a day-to-day basis, but I am the person who is politically responsible for it. I'm interested in what you say about the number of ministers, because some of this news may recall that in 2020 you turned down. A job as a minister of state in the department of justice, I think, on the basis that you could be more productive on the back benches. How do you square that with your own minister of state in the department of justice? Now, have you mentioned to him that he might be more productive on the back benches? No, and I have two outstanding ministers of state in the department, Colin Broffy and Nile Collins. They do excellent work. It's not decision was partly a personal decision, but it's not a decision ever, Greg. You think you were more productive in that type of situation? From my point of view, I was, from my point of view, I believe I was. I would have been dissatisfied, there wouldn't have been particularly productive, I don't think. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm undermining myself, but I'm just happy with the decision I made. Obviously, it's a problem of any person to accept or reject a job, but I want to say the two junior ministers in the department of justice are doing the next job. Which brings us neatly to jobs and so forth. I think the perception around political circles generally would be that you are enjoying the work in the department of justice, that you have an agenda that you want to see implemented. You've been very distinct in certain policy areas, some of which we come to on immigration is one of them. And the perception I think amongst your colleagues is that you are not in any hurry to look for another job. And clearly, there's a discussion ongoing within your party about the future of the party leader. And you've been clear in talking about the future, I think, in saying that you do have ambitions to lead the party. But equally, you've been clear in saying there's no current vacancy. The report on the presidential election, I think, is due to come to the party this week, perhaps. If it does, it's anticipated in some quarters that there will be a motion of no confidence in the leader. Would you vote confidence in Michal Martin as leader of Finafall? Or does that depend on what's in the report? That is a lot in that part. First of all, I think your description of my position that you gave at the outset is fairly accurate. Secondly, you've jumped in from there's a report coming to a motion, no confidence. I think you're jumping ahead with the crisis. Well, I am, but maybe not all that far. Yeah. What's your assessment then of Steve Sandsken's party? Finafall is a party we made a bad decision. I know I say that with the greatest of respect to Jim Gavin. But I think, on balance, and I said this at the time, and of course, I backed Jim Gavin, on balance, that was a bad decision by me, wrong decision. We should have gone for somebody who had more experience, who had been to the political battles before. We had an outstanding candidate available, Billy Keller. I look at myself and say, I should have just backed Billy Keller, which is probably instinctively what I wanted to do. But I thought that Jim Gavin could get a momentum that perhaps Billy couldn't get. So rather than sublime in other people, the first thing I do is I look at myself. I think it's worthwhile that we're doing a report in respect of presidential elections are unusual elections there. So we're announced for events developing, which people hadn't predicted. But I think it's beneficial that Finafall has done the reports. The first thing I'm going to do is I'm going to await the outcome of the reports and read the reports. I'm going to discuss it as a party. So if you wanted to, you could say to me now, yes, I will back, me on Martin, that he may have made mistakes in the organization of the presidential campaign, the selection of the candidate, but none of those mistakes could possibly be significant enough to mean that his period as leader should end. But you're not saying that. I'll say it here. I'm backing, Michal Martin. I think we need to have a broader perspective of the past rather than just going back to September. It was just over a year ago that we had a very good general election result that we were the largest party in dollar and after the general election. We also prior to that, the very good locals in European elections. So people need to be fair in terms of the assessment of a leader's performance and achievements. We have to take a very quick break, but we're back after this. Remember, you can contact the podcast, the politics podcast at IrishTimes.com. And you're very welcome back. Minister, I want to turn to migration because I think there's no doubt that you have been the most prominent member of the government when addressing the various issues related to migration, which we know are complex and they have different levels and there are different kinds of people and different kinds of circumstances involved. But my first question is when did the government decide that the overall top line level of immigration into Ireland was too high? Well, first of all, I am the minister for migration and the Column Brophy obviously is the junior minister in respect of it. If you look at, I suppose, our population here. Like last August, we saw that the population was increasing by 1.64 percent, which is seven times the EU average. It's been driven by immigration. Like that level of increase is recognized. I think across the government has been very high and efforts should be made to try to curtail it. And in order to curtail it, the only way we can is through trying to introduce some policies in respect of inward migration. It was quite high last year as well. Yeah, it was. But we're growing. I think it's only Malta who's growing at the same rate as us. It's fantastic that our population is increasing for years in this country with the declining population. The reason the population's increasing is because of the success of the Irish economy, because of the success of Ireland as a country. But we just need to be conscious that that rate of increase is very significant. And it's obviously putting huge pressures on other services that we provide. I suppose, and all that, what you've just said, is this subject, obviously, of current debate. But I'm just wondering at what point over the course of the last three years, did this become apparent? You know, the question of demographic growth is pretty fundamentally to planning for our country, as we know. We have an awful lot of talk about infrastructure and things at the moment. Was this a debate that went on within government? It seems to be such a large policy question to change to change one's line on, without any real, can I get some drips and drabs from Simon Harrison yourself? Okay, well, I don't know if that's a fair assessment of it. At present, I'm working on a national migration strategy. And up to now, I suppose, migration into Ireland has developed over organically and haphazardly. There hasn't really been a focus national plan as to how we see migration operating over the next 10, 15, 20 years. That is something that's been worked on in my department. I think it would be beneficial to see that. But certainly, it's something that became apparent to me as Minister for Justice 11 months ago, that the rate of increase of our population is very significant, and it's putting a lot of challenges on the system. What sort of a, I mean, if 1.6 is too much, so what, what sort of percentage is something that needs to be said is obviously a national migration strategy, but I would have taught 1.6%. The EU average, I think, is in the region of 0.23%. Again, that's driven by migration in the EU population. The EU population is on a natural decline, now resistant. But in terms of, when you say natural decline, you mean it's not on a natural decline because of immigration. Yes, since it hasn't happened herself. Yeah, Bertson Dets. Bertson Dets are down pretty significant. The birth rate has dropped significantly, so the reason why the population grows by 1998,000 last year, is net migration. A lot of the, so I was at the press conference in which you announced the policy and you made some changes to family reunification rules and so forth. But the largest part of the inward migration is from people who are on work visas here. They're here legally, they apply for permission, they get permission from your department and they come in and they work here. Do those numbers have to come down? Well, we need to have a broader perspective in terms of the numbers. Like, in terms of, first of all, the probably the largest number is the numbers coming from the EU and other UK. Okay, we're looking at a proxy. No control over those. I know, I know, but that's so we've to try and look at the things we can control. There were around 12,200 employment visas issued by my department last year. So, you know, that's a reasonable amount of what I've thought. If you're looking at areas such as student permissions, there's approximately 60,000 issued. That's something that we are looking at. Call and profile myself. We're looking at along with James Lawless. So, if we're trying to reduce the growth or the rate of growth of population, we need to look at the areas that we can control and want to know what the torches in terms of student permissions. So, that high level of student permissions. So, concern has been expressed in the past about certain elements of the cohort of language schools that that is essentially that's a form of work related to immigration. It is, in Frank, I would have told you this, like you're entitled to work for 20 hours if you come into an English language school. So, it's obviously a lot of work being done in English language schools. It's very legitimate and people are coming here to learn English. But also, I think it has been used as a mechanism to come into work. James Lawless, myself and Colin Broffey are looking at that. We're going to try and tighten things up in respect of us, I suppose, that will involve greater assessment of the English language schools in the first instance. And family reunification is another contributory element to this top line number as well, isn't it? So, can you reduce that? It is. I think family reunifications around 20,000 per year. And if you look at family reunification, it's two areas. There's family reunification for people who have work permits. And also, there's family reunification for people who have received refugee status, who are successful international protection applicants. And in respect of both, when it comes to discussing this, I have to also take into account not just the interests of the individual's concern, I have to take into account the general public interest as well. And obviously, a family reunification is ongoing and elderly parents are coming in or younger children are coming in. The state is going to have a significant responsibility and cost in respect to those individuals. So, that's why it's important that people will be allowed to achieve family reunification, but you're going to have to display self-sufficiency in that you can take care of them yourselves financially. A very large part of this debate focuses on the cohort of applications for international protection and the system for processing them and the shortcomings of it and accommodation and all those kind of issues, which you're well aware with, is Irish policy in this area inevitably driven by what's happening in the UK? Not inevitably, but it is impacted by what's happening in the UK. Can I just say, I don't want to spend the time focusing, and I'm not criticising you by the way, France's question, but I don't think that I'm trying to make negative decisions in respect of asylum applicants, but there are issues that arise in respect of asylum applicants that don't arise in respect of others who come here and serve on work permits. As you mentioned, somebody who came to asylum, we've got to provide accommodation, and you know yourself the issue that arises in terms of going around the country trying to get accommodation. Secondly, then we've got to process the application, which is a lengthy and costly process. So, just looking at it objectively, it is a more complicated process in terms of assessing a person as to whether or not they're entitled to stay here. We don't have as much control over it as we have in terms of issuing visas. The UK does have a big impact, and the reason for that is because of the common travel area. Like, people regularly can travel from Britain to Northern Ireland and down to Dublin. What's your department's calculation on how many applications for international protection come from the UK? Our calculation is based on the fact that people who make their application, I think, don't make the application at the airport. We assume, and this may be rightly wrong, but we assume that they're coming over the border, and the calculation is that it's approximately the 87% of the people who've arrived this year have arrived over the border. And anecdotally, that is confirmed. So, there's obviously I have to be careful, but I have to be frank about it as well. It's a fine aspiration to say this, and we can welcome into Ireland, everyone who wants to claim asylum. That's not realistic. And I have to be careful that the numbers, which were exceptionally high last year, 18 and a half thousand people arrived last year, those numbers are reduced. As otherwise, we will have a breakdown and social cohesion. We will have tents on the streets, I know there are some, but we'll have too many tents on the streets. And it'll look like a system that the government is not in control of. And the most important thing I want to do in migration is to establish that there's a rules-based system which the government is in control of. I completely accept you saying you don't want your position on this to be misperceived, but the reality is that the broad public perception is that this government has changed course quite significantly from the previous one on these matters, and that you're leading the way on this. And that's sometimes characterized as a right-ward shift or a more hard-line position on immigration. And in that situation, Ireland is following a lead, which is being pursued, I think, by the vast majority of other European countries as well. Would you accept there's a direction of travel here from the previous government, which is quite different? All I can say is I've been Minister for Justice since last January. I'm responsible for migration, along with Colin Broffey. I have to make decisions that I believe are in the best interest of the Irish people. I don't compare myself to previous governments or previous ministers. As I said to you, what I really want to do is to ensure that there is a rules-based system. You talk about it being a right-ward shift, like I could have a discussion with you about as to whether or not it is correct to categorize increasing restrictions on migration as being right-wing and lasting restrictions on migration as being left in it. There is an argument to this. There are social democrats who disagree with that characterization, for example. Yeah, in the way that I'm, yeah, they agree with me. Yeah, there is a point. I obviously a lot of people who are business owners want access to cheaper labor. But I have to look at what's in the best interests of Ireland. I'm applying a system that I think is appropriate. There have been some restrictions that have been inputted. If you look at this, I think we're still a very receptive and caring and generous country, like we accepted in 130,000 people from Ukraine and temporary protection. In the past three years, we've accepted in 22, 23, 24, 45,000 people seeking international protection. We accommodate them. I can tell you, in comparison to other European countries, we're a much more generous and I suppose rules-based system done in other countries. What's the sustainable number? If you want asylum numbers come down 18,500 last year, you have about 13,000 this year. We want that to come down further. Can you just say what number can the system tolerate? Can you just say as well? We're talking about asylum and fairness to you. We discussed the other numbers as well. The big numbers are student permissions, people coming from the UK and the EU, people here in work permits, Irish people coming back. Asylum is a percentage of that 18,500 is a percentage of it. It's not a small percentage, but it's not the largest factor of it. People criticize me for saying this. Obviously, a lot of people are coming here. In the same way as they use student permissions that come in here predominantly to work, a lot of people use the asylum system because they want to come here to work. That's clear from the statistics, from the numbers in terms of the numbers who are granted asylum and those who aren't. I think in fairness to everyone, that if we can have a system that operates much faster, that we'll see numbers declining. If you look before COVID, when the economy was doing well in 2018, 2019, we're talking about 3,000, 4,000. I don't know if we'll get down to there. I'm not setting any numbers as a goal to get asylum figures down to. But what I do want to see is that there's a system that is designed and is operating for the benefit of people who are fleeing persecution and more. Those who want to come here to work have another method of applying, which is through the work permit application. But the entire trust of government policy is to bring down those numbers. I accept what you say about the other numbers. As you say, we've talked about those other factors in it. But you yourself have talked about the overwhelming. I think you've talked about the overwhelming numbers. I know, you've criticized me for that. Yeah, because it's not overwhelming. It's about 60 percent of people who want to go through the appeals process. Let's just deal with the fact there's been 19,000 and 38 applications for international protection this year. And at first instance, 81.56 have been rejected. So 18.44 have been granted. Then it comes on to appeals. Obviously, those cases haven't just been determined. Some of them have been determined by appeal. But if you look at the appeals process this year, there's been 5,824 appeals completed this year. And 73 percent of them have been rejected. So like, when you work to figure this out and it's working, you're probably in the region of the late 60s since it's been rejected. Just in relation to the broader international context, Ireland, along with quite a lot of other European countries, is seeking a different interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights on what defines cruel and inhumane. This relates to deporting people who either whose immigration or so, whose asylum applications have failed. Or I think in some instances as well, it might pertain to people who have criminal convictions in the in the counties in question. Some of those countries who have joined in that argument, places like Denmark and the United Kingdom as well, have explored the possibility of what's called offshoring some of those individuals, whether that be to places like Albania or Uganda or Rwanda. Would you rule out Ireland ever being involved in a process of that sort? I'm not going to rule anything out here because I don't know what the future is going to hold, but you know, my preference would be that that wouldn't need to rise. It is interesting, however, to have been present at the Council of Europe meeting in Strasbourg last Wednesday. Like there was a significant number of countries in the Council, Europe, 27 countries, signed up to what was the joint statement. However, there was also a conclusions document which everyone agreed to, which had highlighted the issue, I suppose, of migration and the challenges of removing people from the country. Like there has been a change in how the European Court of Human Rights interprets inhumane and degrading treatment. Like, you know, you'll recall, I recall like the hooded man case many years ago where they were deprived of sleep, noises played to them held up against the wall. Ireland took a case against the UK. It was held not to be torture, but it was held to be inhumane and degrading treatment. We've now seen the development of that law in the European Court of Human Rights where they say, like trying to remove somebody from, say, Belgium to Georgia, which was the case in the Papish Vili case, they say that that is a breach of article three, if the person who was sick isn't going to get the same medical treatment in Georgia as they would have gotten Belgium. So that's a big extension in respect of it. And also in terms of the tariff case, if there was a risk of someone being left without accommodation in terms of an application from one country to another moving them from Italy to Switzerland, that was seem to be an indication of article three. So what the the states are doing, is they're just trying to get agreement on a declaration that will be issued if there is agreement in May to set out what is the state's view in terms of how that article three right should be, what it means. So in terms of what you're saying there, in terms of, as you say, a large number of people applying for international protection are ultimately judged to actually be economic migrants of one sort, you know, the people who want to come here for another reason to work and to make their make their lives here, but but whose applications fail. And then you add to that the layer of a kind of a mission creep at the court level in terms of restricting the state, in this case Ireland's ability to, what's everything applies to every stage has that like obviously in Ireland decisions of the European court are influential in terms of how our own courts interpret the convention. So it does have an impact. There's a concern to it like, you know, you talk about how the Irish government has moved like, you make this may surprise you, I'm one of the milder voices in Europe when it comes to these issues. It is one of the things that surprised me is that migration in the European context is seen very much in a security view, very much in a security view and that increases the more east to go. And obviously it is the case that migration has been instrumentalized and weaponized in terms of like the Polish border and other countries bordering Russia. So I can't emphasize, you know, has significant issue it is. But the politics of immigration have changed completely. Haven't they over the last 10 years, isn't that the case? In Ireland or generally? Generally, and in Ireland. Or at least Ireland is perhaps following. Well, it's obviously behind. I would have told you 10 years ago, I think it was very much in Ireland, like we have our international obligations, we have to comply with them and we were complying with them. Like the debate 10 years ago would have been, God, the direct provision system needs to be improved. But obviously the narrative was going to change when the, I suppose the pressures on the system change. Like we were dealing with like three or four thousand people applying for asylum each year. Last year, we're dealing with 18 and a half thousand people. Like on a per capita basis at one stage last year, I think we were in there at the top, maybe Greece and Cyprus, Ireland, we were in there at the top. So that is going to change the narrative. As I say, it's a wonderful aspiration to be able to say we will accommodate anyone who wants to come here. It's not realistic. I want to ask you something about, we're going to use hosts privilege here because we're in the walls at the Irish time. So I'm going to ask you about the defamation bit. It's only one part of your very broad agenda, but it's winding its way pretty slowly, I think it's fair to say, through the Oroctis. I mean, you famously were against one of its key provisions, which was removing juries in certain trials. And equally famously, you changed that position when you entered government. And I think you accounted for that perfectly reasonable as these are the kind of things one does when one joins a government with collective responsibility. But I take from that that you still think that the getting rid of juries in defamation trials is, I think your wording was short-sighted or ill-thought out. Well, there's going to be consequences to it, but obviously I'm bound by the program for government. And irrespective of what my views were, you know, I'm bound by what's in the program for government. And remember, in the dull people that are perfectly entitled to criticizing me for applying the government position, but like I don't regard it as like an issue of the greatest significance that would require me, you know, to say, this is just an example, I can't be forced to do this. Like predominantly in civil jurisdiction in the high court, you don't have juries, okay? I suppose the point I was making is that at the same time we're introducing legislation, trying to, you know, stop strategic litigation against public participation. And yet the media don't want their readers or their listeners to determine cases in which they're involved in the high course. So the argument is that the enemy is the perfect of the good and there are more important things. But is there another element to this too? And I need to choose my words carefully. Is there an element of conflict of interest here? You know, the successful career at the bar, which your colleagues, I mean, every analysis says that the removal of juries from this process will reduce barristers' incomes? No, I don't think so. Like, I'm sorry, I used to do cases for newspapers as well as for the other side of defamation cases. That's the joy of it, but there's more to make choices, isn't there? Yeah, I didn't spend 20 years knocking on doors to become a lobbyist for the legal profession, having become a minister. So like my sole focus is on what do I believe is in the best interests of the administration of justice and people who seek access to justice. Decisions being made, juries are going to be abolished. I can see the logic of it because it will make cases faster and it should reduce costs. The only warning I will have is that at present, you don't have a big body of jurisprudence on defamation cases. The only time you read the report to judgment is when it goes to an appeal court. You're now going to see what's happening in England where defamation case is going to get much more complicated. You'll have more interlocatory hearings. You'll have a broader jurisprudence. And you know, that is going to have consequences as well. But I'm supportive fully of the government position, which is to remove juries. And I welcome the debate that's gone on about the defamation bill. Like, you know, sometimes people criticize Shana Darren. You know, there's good engagement there in respect of the defamation bill. Can I send another subject? Because I know we're under a little bit of time pressure. And you're, I was looking at your website over the weekend. And I think this content might be a little bit dated, but it's still up there. And you're talking about the role of Fina fall. And it says, after COVID and Brexit have passed, reunification would become the biggest political issue facing this island and its people. Do you think our unity is the biggest? Yeah, I think it will be. I think it is now. Sorry, it will be. It will be COVID and Brexit have passed. Yeah. No, I think it's going to be a big issue. And I suppose what's unusual about Irish reunification is that generally when it comes to referendum, we control it ourselves. So, you know, what's the government going to do? The people of Ireland can have a discussion here. We've partially controlled it with rest, not with us. It rests elsewhere outside the jurisdiction because it's the decision of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to determine whether or not there should be a border poll. We just need to be conscious of that and have the political climate in the UK can change very quickly. Like it's not just me saying this. But it isn't really the subject. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not the subject of current political discussions between the Irish and British governments. No, it's not, but it is an issue that's sitting on the shelf, if I can say this, that isn't going to go away and it's an issue that's going to have to be engaged with, and when it is engaged with, it's going to be a very significant issue for an Irish government to deal with. But shouldn't a government, you know, that is planning for the future be already engaging with it in a way that lots of advocates for the idea want, do you want to, I went to national concert hall too, so there's a go to listen to your Fintanyl tool from here and Sam McBride. There was about 500 people out there. It was, you know, I think that is a sort of crowd finting gets. Yeah, I'm sure you would. The two of you have got a big crowd if you just start doing the rest of the Irish times podcast or something. But it is, sorry, it is an issue in which I am interested. I think a lot of good engage with this ongoing between the two jurisdictions at present, you know, it's not going to fade away as an issue. And I think it is going to become a very big issue. One of the things that Fintanyl and Sam McBride have warned about is the possibility of not a prime minister, Nigel Frag, springing referendum on the Irish government. Is that something that you would be concerned? Absolutely. That's part of the point I was making there. Like, you know, if you look at what is the prominent or predominant political direction in Britain at present, it's English nationalism. English nationalism historically has never had any interest in Austria unionism. It may have used them when it was convenient to do so. So, like, we just need to be conscious about that. And one of the issues, we spoke earlier about immigration here. Like, the UK are worried about immigration from Dublin, people coming from Dublin, up to Northern Ireland, into Britain, that way. So, like, if reform get into governance, that could be an issue they're concerned with, they're concerned about the European Convention Human Rights. That's why I thought it was really important that we, you know, give support to the UK as well. The UK government at present wants to stay within the European Convention and Human Rights. We want them to stay within the European Convention. Others just want to take the measure. And if they're taken out, that will have very negative consequences for the good Friday agreement and in North South relations. I'll ask a quick question, Minister. If and when a vacancy arises as a position of leader of phenophol, is it your intention currently to seek that position? Well, as I said earlier on, there's no vacancy at present. That wasn't my question. I know it wasn't. It's not said before. It'd be a great honor to lead phenophol. I think any member of the phenophol parliamentary party would say that. Jim McAlham, thanks very much for joining us today. Thanks also to Pat and to our producer, Declan Conlin. We will be back with you very soon indeed. Until then, thank you very much for listening.