Nicole Ryan
Administrative Panel · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“This is not just happening in my area; it is also happening in other places where estates are not being taken in charge and, therefore, residents do not know who to call if something happens. They are left alone. Tanyard Wood is unique because nobody has taken charge of the estate for ten years.”
“By 2007, the developer had gone bust and therefore, Cork County Council submitted an appeal to take charge of the estate. It has been almost ten years and it still has not taken charge of the estate. It sits in no man's land. The estate has not been maintained. No proper maintenance at all is happening.”
“It means that cancer patients in the mid-west have virtually no opportunity to access clinical trials. Accident and emergency access, dentistry and now access to clinical trials for cancer patients - how did we get to this point?”
“I will speak briefly on amendments Nos. 39 and 41. Amendment No. 39 is quite straightforward. It ensures that applicants are clearly informed of two fundamental rights within their international protection process.”
“At the core, the amendment is about ensuring individuals entrusted with supporting some of the most vulnerable children in our system are properly trained, suitable for the role and held to appropriate standards.”
“We need clear timelines. Interim measures are required to ensure residents are not left feeling unsafe or conditions are allowed to deteriorate while progress drags on. People bought homes in the area in good faith.”
The complete record
Every one of 598 lines we hold for Nicole Ryan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 12.
“They ensure that restraint is always governed by the statutory safeguards; protections apply to everyone physically present in the centre; and no one falls into a legal grey zone. There is no room for ambiguity in this Bill when we are dealing with deprivation of liberty, coercion, interventions and highly vulnerable people. If a person is present in a mental health centre, then they deserve the full protection of the law. If a restraint is applied, it must be applied strictly in accordance with the regulation.”
“152 replaces the phrase "in the care of" with the words "present in". Again, it looks like a technical amendment but it is quite fundamental. The phrase "in the care of" implies a formal, legal or clinical relationship. In real life, however, people can be waiting for admission or assessments. They can be transferred between units, held temporarily or attending involuntarily. In all of those situations, a person may be physically present in a registered centre but not yet formally in the care of the service. This amendment ensures that safeguard applies to every person present in a registered centre rather than those who have already been formally admitted or assigned to a care team. These amendments do three things.”
“It sets out the conditions, authorisations and regulatory framework for such restraints to be used. By explicitly linking section 53 to section 57, this amendment ensures that restraints cannot be applied informally or through local customs, nor can they be normalised as a routine practice. It provides that all use of restraints will be subject to the statutory safeguards, oversights and regulation set out elsewhere in the Bill. We cannot have a situation where one part of the Bill sets out strict safeguards while another part allows actions to occur without being clearly tethered to those safeguards. The amendment closes this gap. It ensures that when restraint is applied, it is done lawfully, transparently and subject to regulation rather than by habit, convenience or institutional culture. Amendment No.”
“I move amendment No. 151: In page 67, line 37, after “applied” to insert “in accordance with section 57 and”. I will speak to both amendments because they are in the same section. Amendment Nos. 151 and 152 deal with who is protected by the safeguards of this legislation and how clearly those safeguards are anchored into law. While they might look like minor drafting changes on paper, in mental health law, language is never minor. Language determines who is covered and protected and whether safeguards apply in practice or theory only. Amendment No. 151 applies safeguards in accordance with section 57. It inserts the words "in accordance with section 57" in section 53. Section 57 is the section that governs the use of pharmacological and chemical restraint.”
“(4) The Mental Health Commission shall establish procedures for independent auditing and review of all instances where treatment is administered without consent and before a capacity assessment is completed and this review shall consider: (a) compliance with time limits; (b) documentation of rationale; (c) involvement of independent advocacy where applicable; (d) steps taken to support the person’s participation.”.”
“(3) Where a person is deemed temporarily unable to participate in a capacity assessment due to their mental or physical condition, this shall not be presumed to indicate a lack of capacity and in such cases: (a) the reasons why a capacity assessment could not be completed must be clearly recorded in the person’s medical file; (b) a formal capacity assessment shall be conducted as soon as practicable, and in all cases within 24 hours of the administration of treatment; (c) the person shall be supported to participate in the assessment as soon as they are able, in accordance with their rights under the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015.”
“I move amendment No. 112: In page 62, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following: “Safeguards for treatment without consent 48. (1) No person shall be administered treatment without their consent unless a formal capacity assessment has been completed and the person has been found to lack the capacity to consent to the treatment in question, in accordance with the provisions of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015. (2) An exception to subsection (1) shall apply only in circumstances of emergency, where such treatment is— (a) immediately necessary for the protection of life of the person or that of another person, or (b) necessary for protection from an immediate and serious threat to the health of the person, or that of another person, and where no safe and effective alternative treatment is available.”
“Before I call the Minister, I welcome our visitors in the Gallery, the female Ógra from Fianna Fáil who are guests of Senator O'Loughlin. They are most welcome to the Gallery and I hope they enjoy their day.”
“Before I call the next speaker, I welcome guests in the Gallery from the Ballincollig Business Association who are guests of Senator Kelleher. You are most welcome. We all hope you enjoy your day. I call Senator Kyne.”
“I am grateful that I got some answers today but disappointed it took three attempts to get here. The answer is that the Leap card is not being extended yet to Millstreet and the Minister of State is looking at potentially putting on an early-morning train, hopefully in the near future, and is meeting with the NTA. It is great the Minister of State is willing to work with me, Senator Lynch and everybody else. He will know at first hand how it impacts people across the rural constituency I am in. I thank the Minister of State for taking this and giving me the appropriate answers. I really appreciate it.”
“People know that. We know Leap cards exist. It was the Minister of State who asked me how many people this affected. I did a survey in the constituency and received 79 responses. I can share the issues people raised. These are college students who use public transport. One student said they stay with a friend in Cork city on Sunday night just so they can get to college on Monday morning. That is ridiculous. My two questions are simple. When will the Monday morning service from Banteer to Cork be restored? When will the Leap card be extended to Millstreet? If the Minister cannot do that, he should just say it cannot be done. I ask the Minister of State not to give me waffle and say it cannot be done and that he commit to coming back to give an update on when it will be done.”
“When will an early morning Monday train from Banteer to Cork be restored? My second is on the Leap card from Millstreet. The Leap card is supposed to be the backbone of the public transport system of this country. It is supposed to ease travel, make it cheaper and more accessible but, once again, rural towns are left behind. In the reply to my last Commencement matter I was told the Leap card was not the responsibility of the Department of Transport. With respect to the Minister, Deputy O’Brien, that is simply not credible. Either he is the Minister for Transport or he is not and either integrated ticketing falls under his remit or it does not. Right now people in Millstreet are being told no one is responsible. When will the Leap card be extended to Millstreet rail services? I do not want to hear that there is a travel card.”
“As I outlined previously, there is no early-morning train from Banteer to Cork on Mondays. There is a 5.32 a.m. train from Millstreet which does not stop in Banteer and arrives in Cork far too early. The next one is at 8.15 a.m. and it arrives at 9.15 a.m., which is too late. That is not acceptable when there are students who are trying to attend college and cannot live in the city due to the housing crisis. That means people are forced into cars, there are longer journeys and there is more expense. It completely undermines the claim that the Government is serious about climate change when it expects people in rural Ireland to drive cars to wherever they need to go. We talk endlessly in this House about encouraging public transport use. We cannot expect people to use a service that simply does not exist when they need it most.”
“I thank the Minister of State for being here. At the outset, I will say he has taken this Commencement matter from me before. He is not the Minister who I had hoped would be here this morning, unfortunately, although that is nothing against him. I am back with this Commencement matter for the third time. The responses I have received to date have been wholly inadequate. Each time, I raise this on behalf of real people who have issues trying to use a service to get to college. Each time, instead of getting straight answers, I receive vague replies about Midleton, Cobh and investments in parts of Cork that I do not have anything to do with and that do not matter to my constituents. Today I had hoped to ask the Minister two specific questions. The first relates to the lack of a Monday morning train from Banteer to Cork.”
“Equally, it also moves us closer to our compliance with the international human rights standards, including the UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is clear that substituted decision-making or coercive treatment for people must be tightly restricted.”
“It requires that once a person is able, they must be supported to participate in the assessment in line with their legal rights. It is about respect and dignity and about recognising that people experiencing mental distress are still right-holders. Amendment No. 112 introduces something that is absolutely essential in a system that permits coercive powers, which is independent oversight. We have talked about this. It requires the Mental Health Commission to audit every instance where treatment is administered without consent before capacity assessment is completed. This is not around bureaucracy; it is all about accountability and transparency.”
“Temporary inability is not the same as lack of a capacity. One of the most important protections in this amendment is the explicit recognition that temporary inability to participate does not mean lack of capacity. A person may be sedated, distressed, disorientated or they may just be physically unwell. That does not automatically strip them of their legal rights. The amendment requires that the reasons that capacity assessment could not be completed are clearly recorded and a formal assessment be carried out as soon as possible; in all cases within the 24 hours. This prevents longer periods of treatment without lawful justification. The person must be supported to participate, and this amendment reflects the core philosophy of the 2015 Act to the effect that capacity must be supported as opposed to bypassed.”
“That is essential because capacity is not a diagnosis. Rather, it is decision and time specific and something that must be supported. This provision brings clarity and legal certainty to a space that has historically been far too vague. Emergency treatment is permitted but tightly defined. The amendment recognises that emergencies happen and clinicians must be able to act where life or imminent safety is at risk. However, the exception is deliberately narrow. Treatment without consent is permitted only where it is immediately necessary to protect life, prevent an immediate and serious threat to health or where no safe or effective alternative is available. This ensures that emergency powers are used only when genuinely necessary, not because a ward is busy, a person is distressed or because consent is inconvenient.”
“At present, the Bill allows for treatment without consent in circumstances that are too loosely framed and insufficiently anchored in Ireland's capacity law, which creates a real risk of overreach, coercion being normalised and people being treated against their will without proper legal protection. Amendment No. 112 would correct that by embedding the principles of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act directly into the Mental Health Bill where it belongs. There should be no treatment without consent unless capacity is formally assessed. The assessment establishes a clear rule that no person will be administered treatment without their consent unless a formal capacity assessment has been completed and the person has been found to lack capacity. It is not assumed, inferred or implied; it is formally assessed.”
“Rather, it allows professionals the time they need to meet them. It protects clinicians from being set up to fail by unrealistic deadlines. Many jurisdictions operate on similar or longer timeframes with comparable safeguards. We are not proposing anything excessive or out of line with best practice. Amendment No. 112 concerns safeguards for treatment without consent. The amendment proposes a modern rights-based mental health system that respects autonomy, dignity and the rule of law. The amendment deals with one of the most serious powers the State can exercise over any individual, that is, the power to administer treatment without consent.”
“Rather, we are asking for accuracy, quality and patient safety because a rushed assessment done purely to meet statutory deadlines serves absolutely nobody. Protecting rights means doing things properly. We all agree that when someone is detained, restrained or treated without consent, their human rights must be protected in law. The amendment ensures that the law reflects the reality of clinical practice while also maintaining strong protections. We also have to be honest about the pressures our mental health services face. The Minister of State has said this time and time again. We all know staff are doing extraordinary work given the conditions and difficult circumstances they sometimes face. They are sometimes operating in under-resourced and overstretched systems. This amendment does not lower standards.”
“Rural hospitals are limited in respect of speciality availability. There are weekends and bank holidays. In complex cases, a person may be highly distressed, sedated or physically unwell. We risk creating a system whereby assessments are rushed to meet a deadline, documentation sometimes becomes a box-ticking exercise and the quality of decision-making is compromised. The 72-hour timeframe still ensures urgency, accountability and oversight, but also allows clinicians to carry out proper and considerate assessments, engage meaningfully with the person concerned, consult appropriately with families and advocates where relevant and ensure the decisions are clinically sound and legally robust. Again, we are not trying to delay the Bill.”
“I will speak to amendments Nos. 68 and 112. Amendment No. 68 is about changing the timeframe from 24 hours to 72 hours. It is not about weakening safeguards. We can look at it both ways because we are weighing up whether someone needs intervention but sometimes an assessment may not have done properly and, therefore, extra time might be required. The amendment is about ensuring safeguards that are meaningful and deliverable in practice because safeguards that cannot be implemented properly are not safeguards at all. The current provision requires the key processes, including clinical assessment, documentation, consultation and review, be completed within the first 24 hours. In theory, that is, of course, reasonable. However, in practice it is not always clinically achievable because acute units are under pressure in terms of staffing.”
“Above all, it protects the most vulnerable people in their vulnerable moments, when they have the least power and the most to lose. Involuntary admission should not be about control and should never be about convenience. It should never be about compensating for gaps elsewhere in our system. If we retain this power, and I accept it is limited and may be necessary in extreme circumstances, then the criteria must be clear, strict and humane. That is what amendment No. 47 seeks to ensure. I urge the Minister of State to accept it, not as a concession but as an improvement. Strong mental health legislation is not measured by how easily the State can intervene but by how carefully it does so at the times it is needed.”
“The amendment also requires the Mental Health Commission to issue a code of practice for all of those involved in involuntary admissions, including clinicians, gardaí, authorised officers and general practitioners. This is not about second-guessing professionals but about consistency, transparency and accountability. Front-line staff deserve clarity, patients deserve predictability and the public deserves confidence that the most serious powers in this legislation are exercised lawfully and consistently across the State. Amendment No. 47 does not weaken mental health services; it strengthens them. It raises the threshold for involuntary admission, centres capacity and consent, prevents discriminatory detention, closes off misuse of mental health law and aligns the Bill more closely to the human rights standard.”
“We have spoken at length during this debate about the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNCRC, and both conventions are crystal clear on this point. Deprivation of liberty must be the last resort, disability alone can never justify detention and safeguards must be explicit, robust and enforceable. Amendment No. 47 moves us closer to compliance with those obligations. It is not perfect but it is meaningful. If we accept that we are bound by these conventions, is it not incumbent on us to reflect their core principles in our primary legislation? Signing conventions without legalising them or legislating for them is not rights protection but just optics.”
“Subsection (2) of this amendment is just as important as subsection (1). It makes it absolutely clear that a person cannot be involuntarily admitted simply because he or she has an intellectual disability, a personality disorder, a substance use issue, behaves in ways that deviate from social or cultural norms or needs a safe environment. Mental health legislation must never be used to substitute for housing, addiction services, disability supports or social care and yet, historically, we have seen that this has been this case. This amendment draws a firm legal line that says difference is not disorder, vulnerability is not a justification for detention and a lack of services cannot be solved by coercion.”
“The amendment embeds necessity, proportionality, benefit and capacity directly into the legislation, not as guidance or aspiration but as actual law. Capacity is central and not incidental. One of the most important elements of this amendment is the explicit requirement that a person must lack capacity to consent to both admission and treatment. That is not accidental. We cannot continue to treat capacity as something that is acknowledged in theory but overridden in practice. If persons have capacity, then their consent matters. If they do not, then the law must be absolutely clear about how, when and why the State intervenes. This amendment ensures that involuntary admission cannot be used to sidestep consent simply because it is convenient, time-pressured or systematically easier.”
“Under this amendment, a person may only be involuntarily admitted where all of the following apply: the person has a psychosocial disability or mental health illness of a nature and a degree that requires care and treatment; that care cannot be provided anywhere other than in a registered acute mental health centre; admission will likely benefit the person's condition; the person lacks capacity to consent to admission; the person lacks capacity to consent to treatment; and there is a serious and imminent risk to the life or the health of the person or another person. These are not radical conditions but are the bare minimum safeguards that apply when we are talking about removing someone's liberty.”
“That creates inconsistency, overreach and ultimately, a rights breach. Amendment No. 47 replaces the uncertainty with clear, cumulative criteria that must be met before a person can be involuntarily admitted. This matters because involuntary admission should never be a default response to distress, vulnerability or system failure. It must be the last resort, only used when absolutely necessary and only when it is genuinely in the person's interests.”
“(3) The Commission shall prepare and issue a code of practice for staff working in registered acute mental health centres, An Garda Síochána, HSE authorised personnel and GPs, in relation to the provisions of this section.”. This amendment goes to the very core of the Bill. It relates to one of the most serious powers the State can exercise over any individual, namely the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty through involuntary admission. The amendment is not about ideology or about tying the hands of clinicians and it is certainly not about denying care. It is about clarity, proportionality, human rights and legal certainty because when we legislate for involuntary admission, ambiguity is not neutral but is very dangerous. As the Bill currently stands, the criteria for involuntary admission is too loosely framed.”
“(2) Nothing in s ubsection (1) shall be construed as authorising the involuntary admission of a person to a registered acute mental health centre by reason only of the fact that the person— (a) has a psychosocial disability or a mental illness that does not fulfil the criteria for involuntary admission, (b) has an intellectual disability, (c) has a personality disorder, (d) has a substance use issue, (e) may behave in such a manner or hold views that are contrary to, deviate from or transgress cultural, religious, social or traditional norms or customs of appropriate behaviour, or (f) requires to reside in a safe environment provided by a registered acute mental health centre.”
“I move amendment No. 47: In page 25, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following: “ 12 . (1) A person may be involuntarily admitted to a registered acute mental health centre pursuant to an involuntary admission order and held there if he or she fulfils each of the criteria (in this Act referred to as the “criteria for involuntary admission”) specified in paragraph (a) : (a) a person with psychosocial disabilities or as a condition that can be described as a mental illness, the nature and degree of which is such that— (i) he or she requires care and treatment, (ii) the care and treatment required to be given to the person cannot be given to that person other than in a registered acute mental health centre, (iii) the reception, holding and care and treatment of the person concerned in a registered acute mental health centre would be likely to benefit the condition of that person, (iv) the person lacks capacity to consent to admission, (v) the person lacks capacity to consent to treatment, and (vi) where there is concern that the life or health of the person, or of another person, may be seriously and imminently affected/impacted.”
“I have already been contacted by numerous carers who are terrified they might lose their homes or their savings or be forced into debt because of these retrospective demands. This is not the mark of a caring state whatsoever. I ask for a debate on this issue with the Ministers for Finance and Social Protection, Deputies Harris and Calleary, as a matter of urgency. We need to have an immediate pause on all these retrospective bills. We need to review the Revenue's practice and we need to be serious when we are examining carers' payments and whether they should be tax exempt in recognition of the vital services they provide. Family carers deserve dignity, respect and fairness. They give their time, energy, health and lives to care for others. The least the State could do is not punish them for it.”
“When Ministers in these Houses were overpaid, when allowances are miscalculated and expenses are wrongly claimed, nobody is chased years later and nobody is hit with interest, penalties or threatening letters, but when it comes to ordinary people who dedicated their lives to caring for people, suddenly they feel the full force of the State. It is one rule for those at the top and another rule for those who carried the burden of care on their backs. Family carers are the backbone of our health and social care system and we all know that. Without them, our hospitals would collapse, our nursing homes would be overwhelmed and our disability services would simply grind to a halt. Instead of being thanked, they are now being hounded. The situation is causing huge distress, fear and anxiety for people.”
“This is money they simply do not have and these are people who relied on these payments to survive, not knowing they had accumulated tax liability. These are carers who did not hide their income. They did not break the law; they followed the guidance they were given and trusted in the system. Now, because of the data sharing between the Department of Social Protection and Revenue, carers are being retrospectively penalised without warning, without adequate communication and without any compassion at all. What makes this even more galling is the double standard.”
“I wish to raise a matter of urgent public importance concerning the deeply distressing situation facing tens of thousands of family carers across the State who are receiving retrospective tax bills from Revenue. In some cases, these bills date back years. These are not high earners or tax avoiders. These are ordinary people, many elderly, many women and many caring full-time for a spouse, child, parent or loved one with a disability or a serious illness. These are people who stepped up when the State could not and who saved this country billions of euro through unpaid care, yet today they are being chased for thousands of euro in backdated tax. We are talking about carers who may be in their 70s or 80s receiving letters demanding payments of €5,000 to €6,000 or more.”
“I welcome the Minister to the Chamber. I welcome Deputy Neville, his guests and all of our other guests. I hope they enjoy their afternoon. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.”
“The council will be examining its early pregnancy loss policy and championing this. I urge other councils to stand up and I have no doubt that we will all be lobbied on this. This has to change. We can no longer lag behind and use excuses. We need to bring this provision in. Families, women, guardians and parents need that acknowledgement because it gives them so much more than anything else we can offer. I ask the Leader to arrange a debate on this issue.”
“I commend the cross-party group that was formed and I have invited Senator Davitt to join following his contribution. The cross-party work that we have done since convening in July, which is not so long ago, is amazing. We will continue as a group to try to put this on the agenda. This is not party political business, but is everyone's business. For us to get it over the line, we have to collaborate and co-operate on it. I would welcome other Senators who wish to join the group. Our door is always open. I urge them to join because their contributions are valuable to the cause. I also commend Cork City Council, particularly Councillor Shane O'Callaghan from Fine Gael and Councillor Peter Horgan from the Labour Party, who have brought this issue to the council's attention.”
“Yesterday, Senator Davitt made a contribution in which he called for a debate on pregnancy loss. I commend him on that and echo his call for a proper debate on this issue. Commencement matters will no longer do. We are now the only country among our near neighbours in Northern Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland that does not offer a pregnancy loss certificate under 24 weeks, or 23 weeks here in Ireland. This is quite shameful because what we have here is partition between the North and the South. In the North, people are told that their loss matters under 24 weeks and are given formal acknowledgement but in the Republic of Ireland, loss under 23 weeks is not acknowledged. A woman could be 22 weeks and six days pregnant, sitting in hospital having lost that pregnancy but she will get nothing, which is really heartbreaking.”
“I move amendment No. 44: In page 23, after line 36, to insert the following: “Guiding principles to apply in respect of persons with dual diagnosis 11. Services shall provide integrated care pathways for individuals with a dual diagnosis and the range of services including home, community and inpatient care as appropriate.”.”
“It is a job for us and for the Government. It is a job collectively for all of us to continue to champion this and make it law as legislators. This is the ambition we are speaking about. It is fantastic that there are only two children in these areas. Previously, the number was a lot bigger. That is a credit to the Minister of State, but we are looking at it through the lens of the UN convention, which states that detention should only be a last resort and should be for the shortest appropriate period.”
“The Minister of State is doing a great job. There is no doubt about that. To respond to Senator Costello, there is ambition. However, what we are speaking about in terms of ambition is legislating in the context of the UN conventions we signed up to. Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, especially Article 37, there is a right not to be deprived of liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily, with detention only as a last resort and for the shortest period. The amendments in this regard were ruled out of order, but this would have been a compromise that would reflect that we are taking seriously the convention that we signed up to. We have not done that because the amendments have been ruled out of order. That is the ambition we on this side of the House are looking for to be included in legislation.”
“I was listening to the debate. Some of the questions around this were answered but some were not. I understand that it is for the Department of children but, equally, does this Bill not give us the opportunity to begin to legislate? We are quick to sign up in other Departments, for instance, the Department of justice. We opt in on Article 3 nearly every other week. We are quick to do that but when we are bound by the UN and we sign up to something, is this not the perfect legislative opportunity for us to begin to put the conventions into legislation as opposed to throwing them to a different Department as if they are its responsibility? It is all of our responsibility, collectively, in this House to legislate from here on in.”
“Neither convention is meaningfully embedded in the text of this legislation, though. Signing conventions is not legislating for them. Ireland has signed and ratified both the UNCRPD and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and that creates obligations but ratification does not protect a single child or adult unless those rights are given into law. I have a few questions around this for the Minister of State. Is it not the responsibility of these Houses to legislate for the conventions that we sign? If we acknowledge these obligations, why are they not clearly reflected in section 10?”
“I was out ill last week so I was not here in the Chamber. The Minister of State can rest assured I watched both debates from home in my bed. I want to speak to section 10 in the context of a wider issue that came sharply into focus during last week's debate, and that was Ireland's repeated reliance on international human rights conventions in rhetoric without fully translating those obligations into domestic law. Last week, we heard frequent references to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. What was far less acknowledged, however, was that this Bill also directly engaged with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, a convention that Ireland ratified 30 years ago and carries very specific obligations when it comes to children, liberty, autonomy, participation and protection from arbitrary detention.”
“There is no compelling urgency that justifies surrendering leverage at this stage. Ireland can co-operate fully while choosing to opt in later under Article 4. This motion, therefore, presents us with a choice. Do we continue with the drip-drip approach of incremental opt-ins or do we pause, scrutinise and decide deliberately? For us, sovereignty over justice matters must remain with the people of Ireland and their elected representatives. For that reason, we will support mutual legal assistance in principle but we cannot support an Article 3 opt-in to this protocol in its current form. We urge the Government to reconsider and pursue the Article 4 opt-in, allowing for proper scrutiny, clearer safeguards and genuine democratic oversight.”
“Mutual legal assistance has traditionally meant sharing evidence, not facilitating surveillance activities that may already have taken place within another state’s territory. This has serious implications for sovereignty, oversight and accountability. Who authorises this activity? What safeguards apply? What remedies exist if Irish citizens’ rights are breached? How do we ensure compatibility with our own constitutional protections? These questions are not answered by this motion. Justice is not just an abstract EU competence. It goes to the heart of the relationship between the state and the individual. Sinn Féin does not support the steady drift towards an EU justice superstructure that erodes national democratic control. That does not make us anti-European; it makes us pro-democracy.”
“Ireland is already part of the 1959 convention and its first and second edition protocols, which expanded co-operation in sensible and appropriate ways. The third additional protocol, however, goes further, and that is where the legitimate concerns arise. Articles 1 and 2, dealing with electronic communication and videoconferencing, are largely practical and reflect modern realities, but Article 3, which facilitates co-operation in the use of technical recording devices, including GPS tracking and audio surveillance, raises serious red flags. It allows for requests even after the fact, for example, where a device has crossed a border. This represents a qualitative shift.”