Nicole Ryan (Sinn Fein)

I welcome the Minister back to the House. It is good to have him back with us today. We are being asked to debate three significant motions concerning regulations the Government is proposing we opt in to under Article 3 of Protocol No. 21 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. This is not a debate about whether we need a fully functioning, fair and efficient migration system. We do, of course, and we all acknowledge that. This debate is actually about sovereignty, scrutiny and whether the Government should be handing Brussels a blank cheque to set policy in areas where we still have the right to decide for ourselves. Until yesterday, four motions were due to be debated. That number changed when the motion on the EU returns regulation was suddenly withdrawn. Quite frankly, that withdrawal tells us everything we need to know about why this Government's approach is flawed and reckless. It is extraordinary and deeply worrying that the Government is preparing to opt in to regulations where the nature of Ireland's participation is still being discussed with EU partners. It was only at the eleventh hour, citing the complexity of the hybrid legal basis, that the motion was pulled. If anything, this proves our point that the Government should not be opting in early under Article 3 when it has the option to wait until Article 4 and to make an informed decision.

Sinn Féin has been consistent. Where someone is not entitled to remain in the State, the State must act. Deportation orders should be enforced and tracked, but the Government cannot continue to pretend that surrendering more and more decision-making powers to the EU is somehow the answer. Let us remind ourselves that Article 4 of Protocol No. 21 allows Ireland to opt in to EU regulations after they have been adopted, once we know exactly what we are signing up for. This is a prudent and responsible approach. What the Government is instead doing is rushing to opt in early under Article 3 and, in doing so, binding the State to whatever comes out of the EU-level negotiations, even if it does not serve our best interests. Once we opt in under Article 3, we are bound. We have no veto and there is no going back. That is just bad governance.

The three motions before us deal with the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level, the application of the safe third country concept and the transition out of temporary protection for those displaced by the war in Ukraine. Each of these is important and deserves proper scrutiny and decisions that should be made here in the Chamber and not imposed by a majority vote in Brussels. I will deal with each motion in turn. Starting with that relating to safe countries of origin, Ireland already has the power to designate countries as safe for the purposes of international protection. That is provided to us under the International Protection Act 2015. We currently have 15 such countries, as the Minister outlined, including Albania, Georgia and Brazil. Sinn Féin supports the use of accelerated procedures in these cases to ensure efficiency and integrity in our system. There is no added value, though, in surrendering this power to the EU. In fact, doing so could hinder our ability to make decisions based on the realities here on the ground, which may differ significantly from those of the larger Schengen states. If we already have the tools, and we do, why would we give the power away? Why allow a Brussels-wide list to override decisions made here by a Government accountable to the Irish people?

The second motion deals with safe third countries. This concept is already in Irish law. In fact, as the Minister mentioned, the UK is currently the only area designated as a safe third country. Recent legislative changes were made to facilitate this following legal challenges. Again, however, the EU regulation would take things further, removing the requirement for there to be a clear connection between the applicant and the third country. That regulation seeks to make transit through a country proof of connection and, therefore, the safe third country concept could be invoked. Again, if we want to adopt our laws in a way that reflects Irish values and serves our system, we can do that ourselves. What we should not do is lock ourselves into a one-size-fits-all EU measure under Article 3 before the final text is even clear.

The third motion concerns the transition from temporary protection. Sinn Féin has opposed the extension of the temporary protection directive to 2027. We said it was not sustainable and we were criticised for that. Now, ironically, the EU is proposing that this plan end, which is exactly what we had called for. This transition should be led by the Government based on what is right for Ireland and not by following a co-ordinated EU plan that may not reflect the unique pressures we face from housing to integration. We also cannot forget that temporary protection created a two-tier system here in Ireland and that schemes like the ARP exacerbated rental markets, offering supports not available to other people in housing distress. We need a transition but we also need control over how that transition happens. Signing up to an EU-wide approach under Article 3 would remove that control. We can do better for people. This debate is not about opposing the principles behind these regulations. It is about process, sovereignty and democratic accountability. The Irish people elected us to make decisions in this Chamber, not to outsource those decisions to Brussels behind closed doors. Sinn Féin calls on the Government to withdraw these opt-ins under Article 3 and to reserve our right to make decisions under Article 4 with full information and proper scrutiny. Once we sign up under Article 3, that is it. There is no room for change and no room to opt out. That is not how migration policy should be made; it should be made in sovereignty in a democratic state. For that reason, Sinn Féin will vote against all three motions. I urge others in the House to do the same.