Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. At the outset I say that Sinn Féin recognises that return and readmission agreements are a crucial part of having a managed migration system. We have been clear that where any person is not entitled to be in Ireland, they should be returned safely, and deportation orders should be both enforced and tracked. Such return and readmission agreements can be done on a bilateral basis, so they are not required to be negotiated by the European Union on behalf of Ireland. In respect of Kazakhstan, it is notable that Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Switzerland currently have such bilateral agreements. What we are debating today is a motion to opt into a European Council decision authorising the opening of negotiations for a readmission agreement between the EU and Kazakhstan.

Sinn Féin is concerned about this proposal, but more concerned about the approach being taken. What is essentially being asked, uniquely in my experience, is that the Oireachtas is expected to rubber-stamp a motion without having sight of the actual proposal. This is unprecedented.

I consider it an insult to a sovereign Parliament. While members of the committee were briefed on and provided with hard copies of the draft Council resolution, the resolution, as the Minister of State knows, contained virtually no information. We have no information on what funding or other benefits the EU is offering Kazakhstan as part of the negotiations. While Members of the Dáil have very little information, the public has even less. This is a sovereign Parliament and it is our job to stand up and defend Irish sovereignty. We should not do something simply because the EU wants us to do it or to ingratiate ourselves with the EU. We should only act if it is in Ireland's best interests to do so. To decide whether something is in Ireland's best interests, the Oireachtas has to have all the facts. It is also our job to ensure protocols put into EU treaties, including the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, better known as the Lisbon treaty, reflect the concerns of the Irish people and that those concerns are respected and not watered down over time. Protecting and maximising Irish sovereignty in the context of EU integration is important. We must be on guard against mission creep from the EU, which further undermines Irish sovereignty, and against attempts to undermine protections that were crucial to Ireland's signing up to treaties involving further and deeper integration.

We should recall Ireland voted against two EU treaties in referendums: the Treaty of Nice in 2001 and the Lisbon treaty in 2008. At the heart of both of these rejections was the fear of a loss of sovereignty on key issues of concern to the Irish people. Those concerns are just as important and valid today as when the treaties were being debated, if not more so. Protocol No. 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union came into effect in its current form with the Lisbon treaty in December 2009. The protocol provides Ireland with an opt-out and a choice to opt in to legislation governing the areas of freedom, security and justice on a case-by-case basis. They are crucial protections for Ireland. Without these explicit protections and protocols, there is every reason to believe the people of this State would not have endorsed the Lisbon treaty when it was put to them a second time.

The Department of justice recently published a review of the operation of Protocol No. 21. I think the approach today is related to that review and its publication. The review suggests some moves away from the spirit of the protocol. In particular, the retrospective review of all Protocol No. 21 opt-outs, to see if Ireland can opt in to things it has previously stayed out of, suggests a subtle but important, and perhaps dangerous, change in approach. We have learned from our years of EU membership that once we cede sovereignty, we do not get it back. We have to be cognisant of the implications for sovereignty of proposals such as that before us today on the review of Protocol No. 21.

We must be aware of Ireland's situation, which is unique in Europe. We are a common law jurisdiction and part of a common travel area on an island that is partitioned and part of which is still under British rule. What the European Commission is seeking might be put in simple terms, as the Minister of State has put it, as a mandate to negotiate an agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Kazakhstan on readmission. The Government argues that opting in at this stage would further demonstrate Ireland's commitment to a common EU-wide solution to migration. That is a very weak argument in favour of something for which full information is denied to Members of the Oireachtas and to the Irish people, considering we can opt in to this at a later stage when we have further detail and the full facts can be divulged. We are expected to decide on this motion despite the restricted nature of it. We are being asked to endorse something we, as elected representatives in the Parliament of a sovereign State, are not being given details of. If somebody suggested this scenario at the time of the European treaty debates we have mentioned, they would have been laughed at and described as far-fetched exaggerators.

I have a hard copy of what Members of the Oireachtas have been given: one page with virtually no detail. Crucially, it says the negotiating directives are set out in the annexe to the decision. Essentially, we have been given a cover note and are asked to endorse a negotiation based on an annexe which Members do not have sight of. That is dangerous in the extreme, regardless of the basis for the negotiation. I am shocked any Minister, never mind a Fianna Fáil Minister for justice, would bring such a proposal to this House. I was very surprised that we can get no clarity on what is on the table from a European perspective. We do not know what is being offered to Kazakhstan in terms of funding or other benefits in this negotiation. Is there going to be a cost? There has to be something in it for Kazakhstan. The notion Kazakhstan has an issue with EU citizens in its territory that it wants to return is far-fetched. I was surprised when the Minister for justice suggested in the committee that perhaps one of the reasons Kazakhstan would enter this was that it, a central Asian state, may want to become an accession state at some stage. There is a real need for discussion about what the EU is and what it is becoming. Any expansion into central Asia would be a little absurd. Sinn Féin has been clear the European Union should proceed with further expansion only where it does not undermine the position and influence of existing member states, particularly small, peripheral states such as Ireland. Certainly, such expansion should not be used as an excuse to further remove unanimity or representation within the European Commission.

In terms of the proposal before us today, I have said Members of the Oireachtas do not have the full information and the public has even less. The senior Minister himself appears unclear on the contents of the proposal. When he came before the justice committee and briefed members on 29 May, he stated categorically that this just related to citizens of Kazakhstan. In fact, he said that three times when I questioned him on it. However, the briefing note circulated by the Whip's office mentions third country nationals and stateless persons, as well as facilitating the transit of persons being returned to a third country. That is completely contradictory to what the Minister told the committee. This is a significant discrepancy and shows this is being rushed out of a desire to please the EU without even the Minister being clear as to what exactly we are being asked to endorse.

I accept a readmission agreement with Kazakhstan may not seem to be a huge issue, especially considering the small numbers of nationals of Kazakhstan who have come here in recent years. In committee the Minister indicated 12 in total since 2019 had sought international protection; only one person has been subject to a deportation order. However, it clearly impacts on larger numbers when it is related to third country nationals and stateless persons. Under Article 3 of Protocol No. 21, as the Minister of State set out, Ireland can opt in within three months of the proposal being presented to the Council or - and this is crucial - can opt in under Article 4 at any time after a proposal's adoption. Article 29.4.7° of the Constitution requires Oireachtas approval for an opt-in. Under Article 3, the argument goes, we get to participate in negotiations and vote on the measure, but under Article 3 we are also bound by the outcome which is decided by qualified majority voting. We could end up with an outcome we do not agree with. Ireland has no veto and could be bound by the resulting measures, even if they run contrary to our national interests.

We in Sinn Féin are concerned about the wider implications of opting in to Article 3 negotiations, especially when we do not have full information on what is being negotiated by the EU with Kazakhstan. The Minister argued it is beneficial to opt in under Article 3 but during previous debates in which we discussed Article 4 opt-ins, Ministers have come before the Dáil and advocated opting in to measures under Article 4, when we know what we are voting for, and they have said we were not prevented or locked out of the process. The EU obviously knows an Article 4 opt-in might be likely so it has told the Dáil that Irish negotiators were part of the discussions throughout.

It is, therefore, our view, based on what we know and, just as importantly, what we do not know due to the restricted nature of the proposal before us, that it would be much more appropriate for the Dáil to debate whether we should opt into any agreement with Kazakhstan under Article 4, which would then allow us to enter the process at a later stage when we know precisely what we are voting for. That is what this House is entitled to and what the Irish people would expect.

The difficulty I have in a wider sense is with the Government's moves to outsource migration policy to the EU. That undermines our sovereignty and means that decisions taken at an EU level could have serious implications for Ireland. We will not have the flexibility that future Ministers for justice might need because EU decisions on migration policy will not always consider Ireland's unique circumstances, as I have set out, and will not always be in our best interests.

To give an example, it has been reported today that the Irish Government intends, when the EU justice and home affairs ministers meet later this week, to support the proposal to extend for another year, to 2027, the European temporary protection directive for people fleeing the war in Ukraine. That has implications for Ireland and yet there has been no discussion on that point in the Oireachtas. We have been of the view that continually extending temporary measures is not a sustainable solution and is problematic for everyone. We have said that the Irish Government should not support moves to extend the temporary protection directive to 2027. That will be five years after the war started, which cannot be described as temporary. We need a planned end to the temporary directives. We need the Government to bring forward a roadmap for the end of the directive that gives Ukrainians certainty about their future in Ireland or what supports for returning home are available for those who want to do so. Several years after the outbreak of a war when an emergency approach was taken with the support of the Members of this House across the board, the temporary short-term approach must conclude. There should be a return to the application of ordinary permanent migration rules as they apply to refugees and asylum seekers from other states. If beneficiaries of temporary protection are from a part of Ukraine that is not suffering from the war and want to return home, we should be assisting them to do so. We must find a permanent mechanism to deal with people from all other parts of Ukraine who have come here and been welcomed by the Irish people either through our international protection system or our work permit system to ensure a resolution.

I am calling on the Minister to start acting in Ireland's interests and not to go along an EU trajectory for the sake of it or to be able to say we are doing something. Above all, I am asking the Government to stand up for Irish sovereignty. I am calling on the Government not to opt into this European Council decision authorising the opening of negotiations on an agreement between the EU and Kazakhstan under Article 3. Rather, we should wait until we have the full detail of what has been negotiated. I propose that Ireland should be a part of those conversations at all levels. Then we can make a decision with full knowledge. If it is in the best interests of the Irish people, the Members of the House will be able to discuss the issue with full knowledge, which we do not have currently.

See this speech in context