Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis labhairt ar an rún seo. Is mian liom an deis seo a úsáid chun roinnt piontaí tábhachtacha a ardú faoin Aontas Eorpach agus an daonlathas. This is another example of a Protocol No. 21 motion that has come before the Dáil on which, once again, there has been a very short deadline for discussion before signing up. While Ireland has signed up to the European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters, as well as the first and second additional protocols to that convention, the third additional protocol we are being asked to sign up to requires proper scrutiny. Each time we debate one of these motions I am struck by the democratic deficit at the heart of the European Union, how far away decision-making is from the people affected, how little democratic input there is and how little the people know about decisions that are being made. The fact is that very often the Irish people know very little about decisions being made at European Union level that will impact on them.

As political power was transferred away from EU member states to EU institutions, Protocol No. 21 was an important protection for Irish interests in protecting the right of the Irish people to make decisions in the areas of freedom, justice and security. Not only should we be holding on to the sovereignty that we have, including the powers protected by Protocol No. 21, we should be examining where member states should be taking back powers to bring decision-making as close as possible to the people affected by those decisions. For most people, EU decision-making is opaque, complex and bureaucratic. There is not enough democratic input into most decisions being made at EU level. It is time to recognise that the less control and input that people feel they have in respect of the decisions that impact on their day-to-day lives, the more it contributes to political alienation and voter apathy. Therefore, all motions that come before the Dáil as part of Protocol No. 21 opt-ins should be considered in the context of our overall approach to the mission creep by the European Union in relation to the areas of freedom, security and justice, and also in the context of needing to protect citizen participation through representative political decision-making.

For Sinn Féin, the issue of sovereignty is paramount in considering these types of motions, which now regularly come before the Oireachtas for consideration. A constant drip-drip of handing over sovereignty to the EU undermines democracy and our ability as a State to act in the best interests of the people of this State. My position is that unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary, Ireland should make our own decisions on issues in the area of freedom, security and justice. While Sinn Féin obviously supports mutual legal assistance to tackle cross-border crime and crack down on those criminals who operate across borders, sovereignty over justice matters must remain firmly in the hands of the people of this State.

This motion relates to the third additional protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. This convention provides that states that are party to it agree to afford each other the widest measure of mutual assistance, with a view to gathering evidence and hearing witnesses, experts and accused persons.

The first additional protocol extended international co-operation to the service of documents concerning the enforcement of a sentence and similar measures. It also added provisions related to the exchange of information on judicial records. The second additional protocol broadened the range of situations in which mutual assistance could be requested. It aimed to make the provision of assistance easier, quicker and more flexible, including by taking account of technological developments.

While the majority of the third protocol is also related to technological developments, including establishing electronic communications as the preferred means in all cases of sending and receiving mutual assistance requests, it then also permits hearings by video conference. It is this third article of the new protocol which raises some concerns that could suggest greater scrutiny is required. Article 3 of the third protocol deals with the use of technical recording devices in the territory of another state that is party to the convention. This involves a framework of co-operation on the use of technical recording devices, GPS, audio and software in the territory of another party state, including requests after the fact, such as where it has crossed a border prior to the request being made, for example. This is the part of the third protocol that would raise some concerns in the context of the increased securitisation and militarisation within the European Union. I have some concerns regarding the expansion of the use of technical recording devices in the territory of other states because it is clearly stretching the interpretation of mutual legal assistance which is generally understood as the sharing of evidence, serving of documents, etc., rather than letting the agents of another state operate within your sovereign territory.

Will the Minister of State indicate in what detail he has looked into the implication of this new expansion of mutual legal assistance, including issues in respect of sovereignty? It will be useful if the Minister of State outlines the safeguards to prevent the misuse of such provisions. In his remarks the Minister of State mentioned that the Attorney General raised the wider issue of the lack of clarity as to the Commission's competence in exercising its powers with respect to this international agreement. The Attorney General has raised that issue, the Minister of State tells us, but he did not detail what concerns precisely were raised by the Attorney General. It is unfair for the Minister of State to come with another Article 3 proposal while questions remain outstanding. Along with the concerns I have outlined, once again this highlights how signing up to something under Article 3 of Protocol 21, with just days left until the deadline for signing, is symbolic of a bad approach that unfortunately is becoming all too common on the part of the Government.

This week in the justice committee we saw that the State signed up under Article 3 to a provision that results in a deadline of this coming February to enact legislation and the work has not been done. It was signed in 2018. Five years have passed and now there is a rushed attempt to secure a deadline and create a new office. The Minister of State will be aware that the justice committee has raised huge concerns. Had we signed up under Article 4 or left open the consideration, we could have adopted and moved forward at a pace that would ensure that the Houses of the Oireachtas could do their job, which is to scrutinise these measures properly. Instead, we have another proposal, another short deadline, and TDs are told to take it or leave it. It is an absolutely disrespectful way of treating this House and treating the Irish people's House of democracy. For that reason, we will be rejecting the proposal this evening.

See this speech in context