Matt Carthy
Cavan-Monaghan · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“I move amendment No. 1: To insert after "on 2nd July, 2026": "and: further calls on the Government to provide that the Accommodation Recognition Payment (ARP) scheme shall apply only to: — existing recipients with respect to the beneficiaries of temporary protection currently benefitting from the scheme where those beneficiaries of tempor…”
“10 reads, "In page 5, line 31, after “section 2” to insert “or section 3”." Section 3 criminalises recording, sharing or publishing an intimate image without consent where it seriously interferes with a person's privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to them.”
“In terms of the legislation, as well as the breadth of the issues covered in the Bill, the other problem is the number of amendments the Minister has introduced on every Stage on new and unrelated matters that just have not been discussed in this House at all and will not get discussed here because of guillotines being applied and the Min…”
“It is not an additional punishment to be included on the register. As has been said, this is just about having a mechanism whereby the constitutional diktat that justice should be done in public is actually made available. This is not an additional punishment. It is actually a protection for others.”
“We must bear in mind that the vast majority of domestic violence offences and abuses never make their way to court. Most of them never result in a complaint. When complaints are made, most of them never see a file being sent to the DPP. Even when that happens, most of them never actually make it to court.”
“She made the point that when a woman, in the majority cases we are talking about women, goes to a Garda station to make a complaint about domestic violence you can virtually bet your life that it is not the first instance of domestic violence that she has encountered.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,467 lines we hold for Matt Carthy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 21 of 30.
“The Minister referenced that earlier this year the Government supported the extension of the temporary protection directive to 2027. In our view, it is well past time that emergency measures were ended. There has to be certainty for everyone involved. The Government has also allowed the Ukrainian accommodation recognition payment to remain in place despite the fact that it is clear that there is an impact on the private rental sector and it is unfair because it is not means-tested like any other housing support. It has allowed landlords to receive large tax-free payments while freeing them from any of the usual obligations they have with any other tenancy.”
“Meanwhile, we know that the Department of justice continued to lease accommodation from a company called GoodPeople Homecare Limited, which was found to have supplied fake Garda vetting clearances to Tusla. Now it has emerged, in another response I received to a parliamentary question from the Department, that the Department continues to use this company for vulnerability assessments of applicants for international protection, and that this is due to remain in place until next year. How can the Minister stand over that? There is an urgent need at this stage for a review of all IPAS and related contracts that have been granted. This involves a lot of public money. The least the public deserves is maximum transparency and accountability.”
“On top of that, there is no transparency, including around what qualifies some of these operators to provide these services. Figures revealed to me in a reply to a parliamentary question show that the average rate paid per bed per night rose by 68% between 2022 and 2024. The level of profiteering is scandalous. We saw, in 2024 for example, two directors of a company called Igo Café Limited. That was a café that turned into IPAS accommodation providers, one of the largest beneficiaries of State contracts. The two owners paid themselves €4.6 million. Other notorious examples that illustrate why a full examination is needed include the case of where millions of euro in taxpayers money were paid for IPAS accommodation to a company that was owned by a man named by the Criminal Assets Bureau as being linked to gangland crime.”
“Sinn Féin is very clear and unapologetic in saying that IPAS centres should only be placed in areas that have the resources to accommodate them. That means not in areas that are already struggling. There should be an end to the planning exemptions for IPAS and Ukrainian accommodation centres. That was a temporary emergency measure. Above all, there has to be transparency and accountability with regard to IPAS contracts. Profiteering has to be stamped out. This year, an estimated €1.2 billion will be spent on IPAS accommodation. Hundreds of millions of euro more will be spent on accommodation for Ukrainians. A small number of private operators have made millions of euro because of the Government's dysfunctional approach.”
“How immigration is managed has to take into account our needs in terms of workers for key sectors such as health but also challenges including the housing crisis and the capacity of public services, as well as a humanitarian response to those who are fleeing war and persecution. The international protection system has been in crisis mode for years. The time taken for decisions to be made is still far too long. Decisions, including deportations, are not being enforced and there has been massive profiteering from the provision of inappropriate IPAS accommodation. The Government has stripped many communities of having any real sense of agency or being part of the decisions that shape their own areas, particularly when it comes to the location of IPAS accommodation centres.”
“There has been a failure to listen to communities and far too little support for integration. The Government's handling of this issue has badly undermined public confidence, particularly in our international protection system and in the immigration system overall. It has allowed communities to be targeted by those who are seeking to sow division. The context in which we discuss migration is the overall failures of this Government and successive Governments, particularly in areas like housing, economic inequality, tackling deprivation and addressing wage inadequacy. We cannot look at migration in isolation. The Minister talked about the long history of emigration from Ireland. That was largely due to the failures of successive Governments.”
“I join with the Minister in unreservedly condemning the deplorable and disgusting racist attacks that we have seen over the past weeks and months. I welcome this debate, first as an opportunity to make that point but also because it provides an opportunity to address the reality that immigration needs to be managed, and to recognise that the Government has largely failed to do that. When it comes to migration, what we have seen from Government is an absolute failure on every front. Níl aon phleanáil déanta ag an Rialtas maidir leis an imirce ach tá Sinn Féin soiléir go gcaithfear í a bhainistiú. As with so many areas of public policy, successive Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Governments have stumbled from one crisis to another, and likewise with immigration. There has been no planning and no recognition of the challenges.”
“It is failing to recognise what every other person who is dealing with these children recognises, namely that they need support. Those schools are ready to welcome children like Sonny but they need the Minister of State to grab the NCSE by the scruff of the neck and ensure that these children, who are being failed by it and by the Minister of State, get what they are entitled to.”
“The preschool where Sonny had a full-time SNA has stated it. All the reports from every professional who has ever met Sonny state that he cannot attend school without a full-time SNA. If this case is anything to go by, the NCSE is dysfunctional. I have been engaging with it directly on this case since June. This morning, for the third time, I received a response which states that schools are expected to redeploy their current SNA allocation to students with the greatest level of need. In other words, for Sonny to get his entitlement, another child has to be denied theirs. That is scandalous. That is what is happening under the NCSE. What the Minister of State read out tonight is essentially a speech that has been delivered by the NCSE, the very institution that is failing these children.”
“The Government is denying the constitutional right to an education to many children with special needs. One of those children is a gorgeous young boy from Monaghan called Sonny McElvaney. Sonny has made developmental progress beyond what was ever envisaged, primarily because of the efforts of parents. He should have started school a couple of weeks ago. However, Sonny needs a full-time SNA and one has not been allocated. The school that he attends already has one SNA but also has another student who needs a full-time allocation. Sonny's mother started engaging with the NCSE last November. No parent wants to acknowledge that their child needs full-time, one-on-one care. In this case, however, it is clear-cut. The occupational therapist that Sonny has dealt with has stated it. The school that he is to attend has stated it.”
“It is my understanding that PNR data is used by Irish and British authorities when co-operating to maintain the security of the common travel area and to track cross-border criminality. Is PNR data being used and shared to help get a clearer position of who of those subject to deportation orders have actually left the island of Ireland, particularly given the statement from the Minister in reply to my question that it is "not possible" to know the number of people who have left subject to deportation orders? Sinn Féin will not be opposing these motions, but I would like to see the Minister address the other related issues that I have raised.”
“We are told that a total of 1,045 people departed from the State under various mechanisms such as enforced deportation or voluntary returns so far this year, but this is less than half of the number of deportation orders that have actually been issued to date. Last week, I received a reply from the Minister to a parliamentary question stating, "it is not possible to accurately provide the number of people who are currently in Ireland subject to deportation orders." That is a problem. While there are no routine exit checks at Irish borders, PNR data should be available to give authorities in this State a clearer idea of who has left the State and the island of Ireland.”
“While the situation is undoubtedly complicated by the common travel area, it is an issue that still needs to be addressed. We have had a lot of discussions with the Minister. He has spoken about the number of measures that he has taken, but the truth is that the system remains chaotic and crisis-ridden. This week, we saw shocking revelations about the connections between criminality and some of those profiteering from the provision of IPAS accommodation. While 2,403 deportation orders were issued in 2024, just 162 deportations proceeded. This year, 2,330 deportation orders have been issued, while just 202 deportations have occurred.”
“The discussion on passenger name record data is a good opportunity to address the ongoing systemic failure of our migration system when it comes to dealing with those who do not have an entitlement to remain in the State, our ability to ensure that they leave and, just as important, to know that they have left. Passenger recognition data is used at present as part of the process to verify whether a person who is not entitled to remain in the State as a result of a negative decision in the international protection system or upon the expiration of visitor permission has left the jurisdiction. They are important questions because we have a significant problem whereby authorities do not know how many of those who are not entitled to remain in the State have left and how many are still here. This is a significant problem.”
“Given that the sharing of passenger name record data is designed to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute serious crimes, it appears to be an anomaly that this does not apply in the same manner to ferry passengers. It could be argued that this may in fact encourage those seeking to evade PNR to take the ferry. Does the Minister have any detail on whether this anomaly is having an impact on what PNR is designed to address, namely, as part of efforts to disrupt and catch those involved in criminality? Does he have any concerns that those involved in these activities are actually more likely to enter or exit the State by ferry in order to avoid monitoring through the collection of this data? Are there any plans at a national level for the collection of passenger name record data of those travelling in and out of the country by ferry?”
“In the areas of freedom, security and justice, Protocol 21 allows us to opt in or out based on our national interests. It is crucial that we do so. When passenger name record information is shared, it is also crucial that there is the right balance between the protection of privacy and other fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals alongside the important rationale for these data-sharing agreements in the first place. The holding of any such data must be necessary, proportionate and subject to limitations. It is also important to note - and I will ask the Minister some questions that he may answer in his closing remarks - that Ireland is an island nation. We know that there is considerable travel in and out of the Irish State by ferry as well as by air.”
“I note, however, that while it may be appropriate in this case to opt in under Article 3, it is crucial that the Protocol 21 annexe to the Lisbon treaty is not abandoned or watered down by always opting in under Article 3, as it appears the Minister has got into the habit of doing, when the option of Article 4 is available to Ireland. Indeed, the option of not opting in is there too and may sometimes be in our best interest. While this particular proposal may be clear and straightforward, we have seen the Government push through many Article 3 opt-ins where it is not clear that the final proposal will actually be in our best interests. I will make no apologies for saying that Ireland's national interests must always take precedence over whatever the wider EU interest may be.”
“The sharing of passenger name record data is important for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of serious crimes, such as drug-related offences and human trafficking, as the Minister has outlined. This information forms part of the broader management of our borders. International co-operation in the fight against crime is crucial. The sharing of this information is a key aspect of that. These motions relate to agreements between the EU and the Schengen-associated countries of Iceland and Norway on the transfer of passenger name record data for law enforcement purposes. Sinn Féin will not be opposing these motions.”
“That would allow victims to be assured at the time of sentence that their perpetrator will never again be able to intrude on their lives. It is a small but important piece of legislation, and would it would be very helpful if the Minister would give an indication that he is willing to support it.”
“At the centre of this crisis is the fact that legal aid fees payable to solicitors on the District Court family law solicitors panel for this work is deterring solicitors from taking on cases. The Minister indicated this will be considered as part of the implementation of the report of the civil legal aid report group, which is yet to be published and is due to go to public consultation. Frankly, that is not good enough. Before concluding, I want to take this opportunity to again ask the Minister for his support for Bill I recently introduced to the House. The Victims of Sexual Violence Civil Protection Orders Bill 2025 will bring forward a new provision in law whereby a person in relation to whom an offence of a sexual nature is found to have been committed by the courts may be granted a civil protection order.”
“It also means tackling the delays in the courts and making the judicial process better for victims and survivors. There are still far too few refuges. I have mentioned my constituency to the Minister on several occasions. His predecessor promised two refuges, but we are instead waiting on one. It is not good enough. We also need to be aware that the situation is made worse by the failure to tackle the housing crisis. Addressing the long-term housing needs of victims and survivors of domestic violence must be at the heart of domestic violence strategies. Another issue I have raised with the Minister, and which requires an urgent response, is the crisis in civil legal aid for those seeking barring orders who cannot secure legal representation.”
“Fáiltím roimh an deis labhairt sa díospóireacht seo. Prevention must be central to how these issues are tackled if we are to make their elimination a real possibility. That means tackling the underlying attitudes that allow such behaviour and crimes to flourish. It means education and speaking out. In particular, it is important for men to speak out to show that this behaviour does not represent masculinity. As well as tackling the underlying causes of this epidemic of domestic, sexual and gender-based violence, we need to ensure that those who are victims of these crimes are supported at every stage in getting to safety, getting justice and rebuilding their lives. That means ensuring gardaí and all those who work in the courts are properly trained to deal with these issues.”
“Noting that the regulations provide that a citizen whose rights are restricted is entitled to a copy of those policies and procedures, will the Minister ensure that these are published at the earliest opportunity?”
“Is the Minister confident that these regulations address the potentially illegal blanket exemption identified by the Commission in full or does he expect that further amendment or regulation will be necessary? My second question is particularly important given the potential limitation the Government's legislation placed on a citizen's rights to transparency. These regulations will mandate the impacted offices to prepare and implement policies and procedures to provide for the matters relating to circumstances whereby a citizen's right may be restricted, including in relation to timeframes whereby a person's right may be restricted. In what timeframe does the Minister envisage such policies and procedures to be developed?”
“The Government should give serious consideration to the situation anytime it seeks to limit citizens' rights, particularly their right to access information pertaining to themselves. A blanket exemption in case it is needed, even if not intended to be utilised, is poor legislative practice. I have two questions for the Minister regarding these specific regulations, which he or the Minister of State might address in their closing remarks. This is the second set of regulations related to the issues identified by the Commission. I note they were drafted individually in the case of each relevant office on the advice of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government in case further amendment is required in the future.”
“By and large, the GDPR is and has been a landmark piece of legislation. While there are many issues with it, it provides citizens with greater control regarding their own personal data, which is important. It is therefore regrettable that the Government placed not only unnecessary limitations on these rights but seemingly, in the view of the European Commission, potentially illegal limitations. I accept, as the Minister has said, that the GDPR provides for limited circumstances in which restrictions may apply. However, the issue at hand is that the Government in effect drove an articulated lorry through those limited circumstances. That is the opposite of Sinn Féin's starting point when it comes to new legislative or policy proposals, where we prioritise and take a rights-based approach.”
“It can become incredibly burdensome for small businesses and voluntary groups to manage. My own experience of the GDPR is that it is often utilised by State bodies to prevent legitimate questions being asked. I am sure most Members of this House have had experience where the GDPR was cited as an excuse for State bodies or even Departments to fail to interact appropriately with elected representatives. As such, I am always open to revisiting existing policy and legislation to ensure there is a correct balance of rights and obligations. The GDPR, just as with any legislation or law, should not be sacrosanct or entombed. There have to be ways and mechanisms to change it if necessary. Of course, that boils down to the difficulties. When we accept regulations or directives at an EU level, once in place they are incredibly difficult to change.”
“This blanket exemption applied to ten out of the 11 articles therein, articles that related to transparency, right of access to personal information, the right to rectification and the right to erasure, which is of course better known as the right to be forgotten. It also applied to Article 34, communication of a personal data breach to the data subject, and again I am certain that anyone in this House would agree that they are among the most fundamental rights for which the regulation provided. The need for these regulations came to light because this potential blanket exemption was identified by the European Commission. The European Commission and its President get a lot wrong, as we would contend today more so than on most days, and legitimate criticisms can be made in respect of the application of the GDPR.”
“However, it is worth examining how the need for these regulations came about and how they came to light. The need for these regulations arises because when transposing the general data protection regulation, GDPR, into domestic law, the Government included what could have amounted to a blanket exemption from crucial components of the GDPR for the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Office of the Chief Information Commissioner and the Data Protection Commission itself - bizarrely, I have to say. It is worth putting on the Dáil record what rights the Government was granting this exemption in relation to. Largely, it comprised the rights outlined in chapter 3 of the regulation, the rights of the data subject. Anyone would agree that chapter is crucial - perhaps the most crucial component of the regulation.”
“Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an eolais sin. I acknowledge, as the Minister has outlined, that these regulations will not in any way limit the rights of citizens. They will, in fact, place greater obligations on related offices in terms of the circumstances in which they may limit the right of citizens to information. The limitations the regulations place on organs of the State to limit citizens rights are entirely reasonable. They ensure that any such limitation is time-limited to only what is necessary to safeguard the work of relevant offices and mandate that an impacted person be informed that this has occurred. Crucially, the right to appeal any such restriction is in place. This is welcome and as such will be supported by Sinn Féin.”
“In 2024, Monaghan County Council received 273 new applications for LIS funding, yet the funding provided to Monaghan County Council for the scheme would allow for the resurfacing of eight roads in 2024 and nine roads this year. Even with the funding the Minister has indicated, and dealing solely with the applications received in 2024, it would take nearly 30 years to clear all of the roads. We need to bear in mind that the people who live on these lines have to contribute to the cost of resurfacing their own roads on top of their road tax and ever increasing fuel costs. In the interest of fairness, I implore the Minister to ensure that the scheme is allocated additional funding.”
“I agree that the local improvement scheme budget needs to be increased. I point the Minister to County Monaghan in particular, which is virtually at the bottom of the list of the 25 counties that receive LIS applications. Only one receives less than County Monaghan despite our probably having more private lanes than many others. Will the Minister increase the budget allocation to Monaghan County Council?”
“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.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 first 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 the European Union.”
“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 a half hours, although it will probably be 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.”
“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 it is 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.”
“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.”