Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

It is extraordinary that we are debating legislation to prepare this jurisdiction for the possibility of a no-deal Brexit. That we are in this situation is primarily due to the disconnect of British politicians from their people and, particularly, their disinterest in the implications for other countries such as Ireland in particular. All Members are aware of the implications of Brexit but one discovers new elements of that every day. Every sector will potentially be impacted on with, obviously, the food, drink and agrifood sectors being affected first and foremost. I recently had a conversation with a florist who told me that a no-deal Brexit would have a devastating impact on the flower industry because of the number of flowers that come across the landbridge. I am sure officials in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine considered that issue. A great number of sectors will be impacted on by Brexit, as will many thousands of jobs. A no-deal Brexit could lead to 50,000 job losses in the first year. That would be job loss on an enormous scale. I do not believe the Government would dispute that figure which is based on State data.

Although Sinn Féin supports the Bill, it is minimal. It addresses the things that must be done through primary legislation. It has been stated that some measures can be implemented using secondary legislation. This is very much about legislation and trying to do the bare minimum in as short a timeframe as possible. In that context, there is a need for far more, such as outlining the kind of investment that will be required. Sinn Féin believes in a dual strategy for dealing with a no-deal Brexit. Firstly, we should mitigate its effects through State measures and, secondly, overcome disruption through medium to long-term investment in capital and social infrastructure. My colleague, Deputy Cullinane, proposed a €2 billion Brexit contingency plan to provide the investment required to support exporters, manufacturers and producers who largely or wholly export to Britain, to support businesses and ensure commercial exporters are properly protected.

It is a matter of offering support in all the regions, including through public transport and infrastructure. The issue of Rosslare Europort got a substantial airing. Other ports, such as those in Ringaskiddy and Foynes, also require support. Unfortunately, it is impossible to make Ireland entirely Brexit-proof but the only way to protect it to the greatest extent from the worst effects of Brexit is investment.

We need to see more bespoke solutions for the State to be able to ease the rules on state aid. We have long been critical of some of the ways in which state aid rules have been applied, long before Brexit. There has been a restriction of public bodies and public enterprise. It is extraordinary that we have not sought more flexibility already. In this context, we need to seek flexibility on state aid, particularly in the agrifood industry but also in a wide variety of other sectors. I hope the European Union will accede to that.

Let me address some of the justice issues specifically. Co-operation in justice has emerged over 30, 40 or 50 years, not only through the European Union but also under international conventions and through the Council of Europe. There is far more integration and co-operation on justice and security matters than ever before. That is right and proper. While there are conventions and so on, some of the more formal mechanisms are based on EU infrastructure and unfortunately this may have been substantially eroded. It is very likely that it has been eroded by these changes. I am aware of an area that could have benefited. We discussed recently the mutual recognition of probation judgments and decisions regarding probation and community service. Unfortunately, the new EU proposal we are transposing into Irish law now will not benefit those who are convicted and given a sentence that involves probation in the North, for example. They cannot serve the sentence in the South if they are resident there. The same applies on an east–west basis. I am referring to an area of European law that would have been beneficial to the offender, jurisdictions and community as a whole but from which we will not benefit.

There are other areas not dealt with in this legislation. I will come to the issue of extradition. Bail is not dealt with in the legislation. The Minister stated this does not require primary legislation. I hope that is correct. Issues have already arisen in respect of cross-Border co-operation and communication regarding people observing bail and on breaches of bail. We will be watching out for this. The Minister is confident primary legislation is not required but we will have to see. The issue of civil jurisdiction also arises, including in respect of torts. It is not necessarily clear how this shall apply. A great deal of clarification is required, therefore. We may seek to table amendments on some of these issues.

The extradition legislation brings us back to the act of 1965, which is based on a 1957 Council of Europe convention. There is a substantial section on non-refoulement, which is sensible. Perhaps there is room to enhance the scope of the non-refoulement consideration because other jurisdictions have a more expansive understanding of that. In both of those instances and in several others, we need to take into account the fact that while the British Government is ruling it out, there are many influential people within the Conservative Party who would have Ireland renounce and exit the European Convention on Human Rights. We need to take that into consideration, provide for it and ensure our legislation is robust enough and can be revised if what I describe happens and if the standards of human rights that pertain in the United Kingdom recede because of a desire to reduce the human rights protections. We have already seen the appetite that exists in this regard.

We had lengthy hearings on the rights of citizens in the North after Brexit. Mr. Brian Gormally of the Committee on the Administration of Justice has stated:

The citizenship issue is an example of how basic assumptions of the Good Friday Agreement have been undermined. It recognises the birthright of the people of Northern Ireland to hold Irish or British citizenship on the basis of equality. The basic breach of this principle of equality by Brexit would be that Irish citizens would remain EU citizens whereas British citizens would not. It amounts to a new focus of division between the two main communities. It has also become clear that Brexit could make the status of Irish citizens born in Northern Ireland constitutionally and practically insecure. If Brexit goes ahead, Irish citizens will be EU citizens living in a non-member state.

Mr. Gormally outlines three possibilities for how this would be resolved and then stated:

None of these options is appealing as they all involve the implication that those who choose Irish identity are in some way second-class citizens. Their rights as full participants in Northern Ireland life would depend on either a denial of their Irish nationality, as yet unknown bilateral agreements between the UK and Ireland about the common travel area or asking the Home Office to graciously allow them to leave to live in the land of their birth. The reality is that Irish citizens born and living in Northern Ireland have no legal connection to the jurisdiction in which they were born.

Legislation is needed both in the UK and Ireland to recognise the particular status of Irish citizens born in Northern Ireland and their unequivocal right to participate fully in that region and as fully as feasible in Irish society, and full equality in the rights British and Irish citizens can access. A treaty enshrining these provisions in international law would repair some of the damage done to the principle of the agreement.

These issues have been well flagged and the Government should reflect on them and consider amendments. The clearly stated view, shared by many academics, is that changes are needed, not only in British legislation but also in Irish legislation to ensure clarity on the basis of Irish citizenship for those living in the North and clarity as to how they can assert that. I ask the Government to examine this because there is a clear shortfall and gap, and Irish citizens living in the North could be seriously disadvantaged by it.

See this speech in context