Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for the opportunity to speak on the motion on the proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the proposal for a Council regulation on strengthening the security of identity cards of Union citizens and of residence documents issued. This is for EU citizens and their family members exercising their rights to free movement.

I do not think anybody can dispute the need for a regulation that requires and ensures member states issue and renew identity cards or passports to international citizens in accordance with national laws or ensures member states issue permanent residency cards and documentation to family members who are not nationals. This is a given and I do not see how anyone could oppose the issuing of such identification or documentation.

To be honest, I question the need to have a debate on this motion at all but I see from the Minister's speech that there is a requirement that it is changing from qualified majority voting to unanimous and that is why this motion is being put forward to be rubber-stamped in the Dáil today. Why did we need a full debate on this in the Dáil? The motion could have been sent to the justice committee and then come back and been proposed and seconded during the Order of Business and the time could have been used for more effective debates. Although there are concerns about what could happen in relation to this, I do not see why it could not be passed without debate and I wonder what the reasoning for that is. Will the Minister speak to this?

I understand other European regulations are just proposed and seconded as they are technical motions and this appears to be a technical motion. It has already been implemented and supported by Ireland since 17 April and operational since 2 August. We are already supporting and going along with this regulation so debating it in the House would not make any difference, except if we refused to ratify it on the basis of the change from qualified majority voting. Why has this motion been put forward for debate?

See this speech in context