Nicole Ryan (Sinn Fein)

I welcome the Minister back to the House. I welcome the opportunity to speak on these motions before the House. They relate to the proposed series of opt-ins under Protocol 21. Specifically, we are being asked to approve opt-ins for three major EU regulations: a regulation establishing a Union support for asylum, migration and integration for the period 2028 to 2034, and regulations establishing Union support for internal security and justice programmes for the same period. We are also being asked to consider a separate motion regarding Ireland's proposed opt-in to the EU-South Korea negotiations on the exchange of passenger name records.

These are important issues individually but they are interconnected in ways that go to the heart of sovereignty, democratic oversight and Ireland's capacity to make decisions that serve our national interests. Anytime this House is asked to approve an opt-in under Article 3 of Protocol 21, we must be clear about what that actually means. Under Article 3, Ireland may opt in within three months of a proposal being presented. If we do this, we participate in negotiations but we are bound by the outcome, which will be decided by a qualified majority vote. Ireland does not have a veto, even if the final outcome is contrary to our national interests.

In contrast, Article 4 allows Ireland to opt in after a proposal is adopted, when we have clarity about its implications and what safeguards exist. That safeguard exists for a reason. It is part of what secured Irish public support for the Lisbon treaty. There has been a drip-drip erosion of the safeguard, given the Government increasingly keeps choosing to opt in under Article 3 when there is no compelling need to do so. Each time this happens, we surrender a little more of our sovereignty in the area where the EU has no businesses acquiring additional powers, namely, migration, justice, policing and internal security. These motions must be viewed against the wider backdrop.

Sinn Féin has been clear and consistent. Much of the EU migration and asylum pact is not in Ireland's best interest. Ireland must retain sovereignty if we are to have an immigration system that is fair, efficient and enforceable. Our situation is unique. We are in the EU but we are not in the Schengen area and we share a common travel area with a state that is outside of the EU. That has real consequences for border management, flows of international protection applicants and the obligations the EU now seeks to place upon us.

Government officials have already acknowledged that the EU pact failed to consider the common travel area. They have also admitted there is no estimate of the costs Ireland may incur for non-compliance with the pact requirements. Sinn Féin has supported certain elements, especially the asylum and migration management regulation, AMMR, and Eurodac, because these serve Ireland's interests. However, we oppose the remainder and we continue to oppose any further transfer of powers that impedes Ireland's ability to make independent decisions in this area. These motions before us must be interpreted in a broader context. The AMIF supports a range of activities: the Irish refugee protection programme, the returns programme, reception supports, language provisions, anti-racism initiatives and lots more. It is also used to finance voluntarily returns and deportations. The Government has indicated that charter costs will be claimed under this fund. Crucially, the Minister has described the AMIF as underwriting the implementation of the EU migration pact. That is highly problematic. Opting in under Article 3 would amount to endorsing the pact's architecture, even if indirectly. It would bind Ireland to new structures and new obligations at a time when we lack clarity on how these impact the common travel area and Ireland's already strained system. Sinn Féin cannot support the Article 3 opt-in to the AMIF on that basis.

The international security fund is linked to the EU's new internal security strategy, ProtectEU. That strategy includes extremely worrying proposals on chat control and the weakening of encryption. The Irish Times and numerous digital rights experts have made clear that any attempt to weaken encryption weakens everyone's security. There has already been significant pushback from across Europe and these concerns are real, not hypothetical. Whatever benefits the ISF might contain, they cannot outweigh the risks associated with endorsing or facilitating measures that undermine personal privacy, data protection and cybersecurity. Therefore, Sinn Féin has serious concerns and cannot endorse the Article 3 opt-in here either. The justice programme system is the least contentious of the three. It supports judicial co-operation, training for practitioners and access to justice, issues we broadly support. However, the principle still applies. There is no urgent need to opt in under Article 3 and Ireland should not bind itself prematurely. Article 4 is the safer, more democratic route and there is no justification for bypassing that safeguard.

The PNR motion is distinct. It relates to operating negotiations with the Republic of Korea on the exchange of passenger name record data for the purposes of combating terrorism and serious crime. Sinn Féin has supported previous PNR agreements with Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and other countries because the sharing of PNR data is a necessary and proportionate tool in tackling organised crime, trafficking and terrorism. We also support the emphasis on ensuring PNR data is handled in a way that is necessary, proportionate, limited and rights compliant. Therefore, we support this motion, while reiterating our concerns about the growing tendency to use Article 3 to opt in as a matter of routine. Protocol 21 exists in protection of Irish sovereignty. We should not dilute it. It is also worth noting a policy anomaly. The PNR applies to air passengers but does not apply to ferry travel, despite Ireland's substantial sea border traffic. This loophole undermines the purpose of the PNR and must be addressed.

Sinn Féin opposes Article 3 opt-ins to the AMIF, the internal security fund and the justice programme. These motions represent yet another instance of handing over sovereignty without clear justification in areas where Ireland must retain decision-making powers. Sinn Féin supports an Article 3 opt-in for the PNR negotiations with South Korea, but we do so while emphasising the importance of Protocol 21 and ensuring Irish national interests, not EU convenience, guide every such decision.We will continue to defend Irish sovereignty, challenge the mission creep from Brussels and insist that Ireland, not the EU decides what is best for our best people.