Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Today we discuss if Ireland should opt into the EU migration pact. The pact itself contains extremely detailed requirements from all member states within its legislative proposals and it specifies how the entire system would operate across the EU. These are very detailed documents and yet we have not discussed in the detail necessary the requirements and obligations on Ireland if we opt in. Surely, before we opt into any or all of these regulations we should at the very least examine each legislative proposal in detail and tease out the implications - the pluses and the minuses. Yet, we have not had that kind of scrutiny or analysis in this House so that we can be sure we are going down the right road. Our first decision should not be to opt in but for the Government to bring forward the legislation and the detailed requirements for the legislation. We need pre-legislative scrutiny and debates on Second, Committee, Report and Final Stages and only then should we consider opting in. We have done this the wrong way round. We have put the cart before the horse.

An example of this was when the Minister quoted minimum numbers to enter Ireland under the solidarity mechanism of 648 per year. That figure will be reviewed after three years and we do not have to agree to an increase. That decision will be made by qualified majority voting, QMV, just like the nature restoration law where seven countries did not support it but it still went through. There are so many examples of this but this is just one where we have not had the opportunity to work through the detail and the implications. Yes, there were six hours of committee meetings on this issue and I attended some of them but while there were some presentations from NGOs and others, much of the debate centred around the gross deficiencies in the current migration system rather than examining what in fact we are signing up to.

I listened to much of the debate today and yesterday and there were so many general statements about the benefits of Europe and migration, stories about migrants, etc. I agree with most of it but, once again, what we need to tease out is what we are signing up to in the hundreds and hundreds of pages of regulations. It is important to use the word "regulation" because a regulation gives little or no flexibility to member states in how they operate because, by definition, a regulation must be the same in every member state and the Commission is in charge.

Before I ask questions on some of the details of this, I will make the following observation. One Government TD after another told us about the bright future where the migration system will work in an efficiently, timely and humane way because we will opt into this pact. We all know that any system will work efficiently only if the Minister grabs hold of the reins and puts the necessary systems and supports in place. Is the Government actually saying to us it will take EU regulations to force us to put better systems in place because that is what it sounds like to me?

My question is this: what is stopping us from putting such an efficient and humane system in place now? We can do that if we decide to do so. We can operate the current Dublin III system, not in the way we failed to operate it up to now, but as our colleagues in France and Germany have done. We are holding up this pact as some kind of magic bullet but if we wanted to, we could put the pieces of the jigsaw in place over the next six to 12 months and operate under Dublin III. Why are we not doing that?

I have a number of questions. The first one relates to Denmark, which also had the opportunity to opt in but decided not to. We have been told that if we do not opt in, we will attract more asylum seekers. Has anyone told the Danes that or is this just another argument not based on fact? Is this an attempt to whip us into line? I have heard many colleagues reference the UK as an example of how bad things can be but that makes no sense. The UK is not in the EU and any such comparison is spurious because the pact is not in place so any UK outcomes are irrelevant. Why is it essential for us to opt in but not for the Danes? That brings me to my second question. If we do not opt in the same as Denmark, will Dublin III still apply? I have looked through hundreds of pages and have not seen any statement where it would cease to apply. That is really important because if it would not apply for us, it would not apply for Denmark. Is it possible to opt into certain parts of the pact, such as Eurodac? I am not asking for the Minister's opinion as to whether we should or should not. I am simply asking whether we can. If the answer to that is "No", can the Minister tell me where in the pact that is made clear?

My next question relates to the fact that we are in a common travel area with the UK. While we did not opt in initially, this still stands. The Minister told us that about 80% of our international protection applicants came across the Border last year so how will the migration pact affect 50% to 80% of international protection persons who arrive from the UK? Will we need two separate systems because the EU system will be set in stone and any agreement we reach with the UK will have to be agreed bilaterally with the UK and I cannot see it accepting the EU migration rules? Has anybody given any thought to the complicated procedures we will have to put in place to deal with the EU on one hand and the UK on the other? Will this pact always allow us to return asylum seekers to the UK if the EU does not consider the UK a safe country?

What we are doing is a bit like "Married at First Sight Australia" where we say "Yes" to the proposal and then go through the boring detail of legislating for the marriage pact but there is one essential difference. If we say "Yes" at the end of our discussions this evening, there is no divorce.

See this speech in context