Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

We are being asked to debate three distinct motions as part of one debate to facilitate an early opt-in to proposed EU regulations. Until yesterday afternoon, we were due to be dealing with four motions. The withdrawal of the motion on the returns regulation reinforces everything Sinn Féin has been saying, and which I will address here, about why we should not opt-in to these regulations under Article 3 of Protocol 21. It is astounding and concerning that the Government was planning to push through an Article 3 opt-in where it has now been revealed that Ireland’s manner of participation is still under discussion with EU counterparts. In explaining the late withdrawal of this motion, the Government has cited the “complexity of the hybrid legal basis” of the regulation, which has been constructed by the Commission as a hybrid measure with Ireland, Schengen states and Schengen associated states. The fact the Government had to pull this motion with 24 hours' notice should be a wake-up call for anyone who thinks it makes sense to hand the Government a blank check to sign up to regulations by rushing through opt-ins under Article 3 of Protocol 21 when we have the option to do so later with more information under Article 4.

Sinn Féin has always said Ireland’s unique position as an EU state, outside of Schengen and part of the common travel area with Britain raises specific challenges and that our approach to any proposed regulation has to be carefully considered. Article 4 of Protocol 21 gives us the option to opt-in when we know exactly how such a regulation would operate in Ireland’s unique circumstances. The motions, which remain on the clár, and we are considering today deal with important matters, including planning for the end of temporary protection, the designation of safe countries and safe third countries. These are matters Sinn Féin believes should be dealt with by an Irish Government based on what is best for the country rather than through an EU-wide approach that will be heavily influenced by the needs of the larger EU states, which are also part of the Schengen area.

The Government keeps repeating when bringing forward such motions Ireland is aiming to demonstrate our commitment to an EU-wide approach to migration. Who exactly are we trying to impress? The primary objective of an Irish Government should be to do what is in Ireland’s best interests. Where it is in Ireland's best interests to opt-in, this is best done under Article 4 of Protocol 21 when we can examine in these Houses the final contents of the regulation and are in a position as an Oireachtas to satisfy ourselves that this is the case.

The majority of the problems facing Ireland’s international protection system do not require EU legislation or regulations. They require a Government that ensures that international protection applications are processed quickly, decisions enforced to ensure that those who are not entitled to remain leave swiftly and that those who are entitled to remain are supported to integrate into our communities. In the first instance, migration policies should be decided at a state level when possible by governments which are answerable to their electorates. Sinn Féin believes that Ireland’s sovereignty on migration issues should only be impinged when it is necessary to act collaboratively. We accept there are occasions, instances and policy areas where that is the case. There is a need for co-ordination, for example, in the EU with returns and information sharing. However, in the first instance, it is the Irish Government’s responsibility to ensure that our migration system here in Ireland works better, faster and more efficiently while being human-rights compliant.

I wish to address the major concerns of sovereignty with respect to how the Government is approaching opt-ins to regulation under Protocol 21. This something that has been highlighted by the Government's decision to pull the returns regulation. There is a growing trend of the Government seeking to opt-in to EU measures in the areas of freedom, security and justice where Ireland enjoys the right to opt-out. Crucially, once we opt-in, we cannot opt out.

Protocol 21 attached to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU, came into effect in its current form with the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009. It was a key selling point of the Government of the day in respect of the second Lisbon treaty. The protocol provides Ireland with the right to opt-out and the choice to opt-in to legislation adopted to govern the areas of freedom, security and justice on a case-by-case basis. Under Article 3 of Protocol 21, Ireland can opt-in either within three months after the proposal has been presented to the Council, as is being proposed in relation to these motions, or under Article 4, at any time after a proposal’s adoption. Under Article 3, we get to participate in negotiations and vote on the measure. That is the Minister's apparent selling point. However, he did not say we are bound by the outcome that will be decided by qualified majority vote. Ireland has no veto and could be bound by the resulting measure even if its contrary to our interests.

For Sinn Féin, the issue of sovereignty is paramount in considering these motions. A constant drip drip of handing over that sovereignty to the EU undermines democracy and our ability as a country to act in the best interests of the people. Unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary, Ireland should be making our own decisions on the issues for consideration in these motions. These are: designation of safe countries of origin; designation of safe third countries; and the transition out of temporary protection. Under Article 4 of Protocol 21, Ireland has the option to opt-in to these regulations at a later stage. This would allow us to do it at a time when we have absolute clarity on whether they are in our best interests.

Taking three significant proposed regulations as part of one debate scheduled for three and half hours, although it will probably less because a pile of Government speaking slots will not be taken, does not show any commitment to upholding sovereignty and democracy or to ensuring proper scrutiny.

The first is a proposal is a regulation amending the regulation regarding the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level. Member states will be allowed to designate additional safe countries outside of the EU common list. Sinn Féin has supported the concept of safe country of origin, including the use of accelerated procedures for those from these states as part of the efficient management of our migration system. As Irish law currently provides for this, there is no argument to have this done at EU-level. In fact, it makes a lot more sense for this to be done by an Irish Government based on what is happening here with migration flows which may be considerably different from time to time to the experience across the rest of European Union.

The problem we have at the moment, which is down to a Government failure to end the chaos in our international protection system, is that even in the case of those from states subjected to accelerated procedures it is still taking far too long to process applications, particularly when an appeal is involved, which is virtually all cases. At the beginning of this year, the average processing time for a person from a country subjected to accelerated procedures was 15 months once the person appeals the decision.

While there has been a notable increase in IPAT staff and budgeting, we still face significant problems. It was revealed to me in a reply to a parliamentary question this week that there are 25 vacancies in IPAT. That is a vacancy rate of over 20% when you look at the overall staff cohort.

The Government is failing also when it comes to returns. It does not need to rely on the EU in order to do better in terms of monitoring, tracking and enforcing returns. This is undoubtedly complicated by the fact that Ireland is part of the common travel area and does not track exit from and entry into the State.

I have raised issues consistently with the Minister as to how these decisions are enforced and tracked where people do not have a right to remain in the State. Again, there is a huge gap at the moment.

The problem, of course, is that for years the Government did nothing. Now we see some deportation flights but they impact a tiny fraction of those with deportation orders, and I think there is a sense that they are more of an elaborate, expensive PR exercise than anything else to give the impression that the Government is dealing with the issue.

The second proposed regulation deals with the safe third country concept. That concept has existed in Irish law since 2020, when it was inserted into the International Protection Act 2015 by way of the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (Consequential Provisions) Act. It was further amended by way of the Courts, Civil Law, Criminal Law and Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2024 as a result of a legal challenge.

Britain is currently the only country that has been designated as a safe third country under Irish law, but the Irish Government at any time can designate others. In April, the Minister indicated to me in a reply to a parliamentary question that following the redesignation of Britain as a safe third country, following legislative changes, arrangements for re-operationalising the reciprocal returns agreements on foot of the new designation were being put in place in consultation with Britain. It would be useful if at some point the Minister or one of his colleagues could update the Dáil on whether this has now happened and, if so, how many returns have actually been made since they were re-operationalised.

Currently, applicable EU and Irish law requires a connection between the applicant and the safe third country concerned on the basis of which it would be reasonable for the person to be returned to that country. The proposed amending regulation provides that a connection between the applicant and the safe third county would no longer be mandatory, that transit through a safe third country before reaching the EU could be considered as a sufficient link, and that the safe third country concept can be applied if there is an agreement or an arrangement with a safe third country ensuring the examination of requests for effective protection in that country. Irish law, of course, could just be changed to reflect some of these changes - if this House were to decide that is what is required - where they make sense and are in line with Irish interests and values. The option as regards this regulation is that we could opt in at a later stage under Article 4 when we know precisely what it is we are voting on. We should not opt in at this stage when we do not know exactly what will be contained in the final regulation.

Finally, as regards the proposal for a Council recommendation on a co-ordinated approach to the transition out of temporary protection, I want to put on the record Sinn Féin's view that the temporary protection directive should not have been extended until 2027. The Government supported this extension without any consultation with the Oireachtas despite the financial and the public policy implications of the move. The extension of the temporary protection directive to March 2027, five years after the war started, was not a sustainable solution and is incredibly problematic. It is very interesting to read the speech the Minister has put on the record of this House. He said:

Given the inherent temporary nature of the temporary protection directive, it is accepted that even if the war in Ukraine remains protracted, temporary protection must come to an end.

I was called heartless last week for saying the exact same thing. It is a matter of common sense that temporary measures should be temporary. Sinn Féin argued that, rather than extending the temporary protection directive, what we needed to see was a planned end to the directive that gives Ukrainians certainty about their future in Ireland and about what supports for those who wish to return home would be put in place.

The way in which the temporary protection directive has operated in this State has been problematic in many aspects. If we do not acknowledge that, we have a problem. Not only did it create two classes of refugees; measures such as the accommodation recognition payment were deeply unfair and caused huge divisions within communities. The scheme created significant pressure within the rental system. It added to the driving up of rents in many counties as those who were from Ukraine under the protection directive were offered non-means-tested supports for housing that were not available to anybody else from anywhere else in the world, including Ireland, who were in equal need of housing assistance and in some cases might have had a lower income and lower means.

What we have said for a long time is that the Irish Government should have been planning long before now for how we move beyond temporary protection. Government Ministers, of course, were quick to criticise Sinn Féin for saying that an end to temporary protection needed to be planned for, but that is now what the EU is belatedly proposing and the Government signs up in an instant. What we need to see, though, is the Irish Government planning for an end to temporary protection based on Ireland's circumstances, not simply because the EU has decided that is now what we should do.

As it stands, we simply have no idea whether the Council recommendation in relation to a co-ordinated approach out of the temporary protection directive will be appropriate to the specific circumstances and challenges we face in this State. We should not be signing up under Article 3 of Protocol 21. Rather, the Irish Government should start now in drawing up our plans for what we require for the ending of the temporary protection directive, taking into account the needs of Ukrainians in Ireland who came here under the scheme and wider Irish interests.

I again call on the Minister to reconsider his approach to all three motions. We should not be opting in under Article 3. Unlike other EU states, we have the advantage of being able to opt in at a later stage under Article 4 and only if it is in Ireland's best interests to do so. That right was won by the Irish people when, by virtue of their constitutional right to make these decisions in referendums, they rejected EU regulations simply and quite largely because of the precise fear that Irish governments would make decisions at an EU level for which there would be no or limited democratic oversight here.

Ireland needs a managed migration system that has the confidence of the Irish people. We do not have that at present. International protection applications still take far too long to process. The IPAS system has become a cash cow for a golden circle who have made absolute fortunes from taxpayers' moneys with virtually no transparency or accountability. Communities have lost important facilities and services have become overstretched from this failed approach. We cannot have confidence that the asylum decisions that are being made are being enforced or that those who are not entitled to be in Ireland are actually leaving the country. This State must do whatever is required to have a managed migration system that is human rights-compliant. That might include some of the measures included in these regulations, but those decisions should be made in this sovereign Parliament, by an Irish Government that is accountable to the Irish people, not behind closed doors in Brussels where decisions will be binding not just on the current Government but on future governments, and where those decisions will invariably fail to consider Ireland's unique position as a partitioned island nation with a common travel area with a state outside of the EU framework. That is a recipe for disaster.

The Government's response to the migration challenges we face is to give a blank cheque to the EU to set our policies. The very fact that the Minister withdrew one of the four proposed regulations due to legal concerns should raise a bright red flag to every Member of this Chamber who intends to vote for the other three. Once we sign up we can never opt out, regardless of the final text agreed, even when it is blatantly not in Ireland's interest. The approach the Government is taking is wrong. It is, in fact, dangerous and the Minister is abdicating his responsibility to deliver a managed migration system that is accountable to, and has the confidence of, the Irish people. It is for those reasons that Sinn Féin will vote against these regulations.

See this speech in context