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 5 of 12.
“That opt-out was fundamental and not decorative, yet we increasingly see a default Government position of opting in under Article 3, often under tight timelines and with limited scrutiny. The effect of this is that Ireland becomes bound by qualified majority vote and loses its veto, even if the final outcome does not reflect our best interests. That is the issue at its core. Under Article 3, we opt in early and we are bound, regardless of the final text. Under Article 4, Ireland retains the right to opt in after adoption, once the detail is clear, the safeguards are visible and the real-world implications are understood. Our position has always been the same. Unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise, Article 4 should be the default.”
“Sinn Féin supports mutual legal assistance. Crime does not respect borders. Effective co-operation between states is essential in tackling organised crime, trafficking, financial crime and, of course, terrorism. However, support for co-operation does not mean automatic agreement to every justice-related EU measure placed before us under Protocol 21 nor does it mean that Ireland should sign up without proper scrutiny where issues of sovereignty, democratic oversight and civil liberties are clearly engaged. Protocol 21 exists for a reason. It was a democratic assurance to the Irish people that justice and home affairs would remain subject to national choice.”
“It benefits the elite, the developers and the bankers, and it is the wrong focus from the Government. We in Sinn Féin will vote against it.”
“In fact, the Finance Bill will herald a total of €2.5 billion in tax cuts for landlords, developers, investors and others. These are choices the Government will say will support the industry and infrastructure across the State but, budget after budget, homelessness rises and public services are reduced. This should be an absolute shame to the Government. The Government must take responsibility for the tens of thousands of working people for whom home ownership is now a pipe dream. Once again, the ordinary workers of the State carry the can for the expenses of the banks while the banks continue to enjoy their protected status in the Finance Bill. In terms of the Finance Bill before us today, Sinn Féin rejects it. It will not do anything to ease the burden of hard-pressed citizens.”
“We wanted to ensure the first €40,000 that anyone earned would be exempt from USC. That recommendation would have benefited people by up to €742, which would have made a real and tangible difference, particularly in the cost-of-living crisis, but the Government said "No". We tried to ensure that super wealthy workers earning between €125,000 and €1 million would not get additional tax breaks. Again, the Government said "No". We tried to steer the Government to a more realistic course in terms of tax breaks for research but, again, we were not listened to. The Government would not listen to us when we wanted to help poultry farmers either. The Government is listening to a cohort for sure, and that is the developers and the bankers.”
“I welcome the Minister and thank them for being here. It is no surprise to him or to the House that Sinn Féin will vote against the Finance Bill today, given that we have stringently opposed it at every opportunity on its passage through the Dáil and the Seanad. The Finance Bill is not about helping ordinary people, it is not designed to alleviate the cost-of-living crisis, and it will not put money in the pockets of the workers of the State. It will not deliver on housing, certainly not at the scale required or close to it. It is clear the Government's priority with the budget and the subsequent Finance Bill is about keeping the wealthy and letting everyone else struggle. Sinn Féin tabled recommendations last week. All of them would have made ordinary people's lives better and all of them were voted down.”
“(3) The Minister shall, on foot of this report, bring forward proposals for off-setting inasmuch as possible the rising costs for consumers against profits on the basis of the analysis conducted by the Authority.”.”.”
“(1) The Authority shall, before and by 31 July 2026, prepare and submit a report to the Minister for Health having— (a) undertaken a review of— (i) the current rates of profit health insurance providers, (ii) the trend of profits of providers since 2019 to date, and (iii) the rate of health inflation from 2019 to 2025 and the corresponding changes in the costs of health insurance, and (b) conducted an analysis of the potential impact of the removal of private practice from public hospitals on the cost of health insurance. (2) The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the receipt by them of a report under subsection (1), cause copies to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 3, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: “Report on profits, rising costs, and potential impact of removal of private practice from public hospitals 3. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 33: “Report on profits, rising costs, and potential impact of removal of private care from public hospitals 33A.”
“Risk equalisation, fair pricing and protecting customers are essential but, most of all, building a public health service that actually works – one where people do not have to pay twice for healthcare – must be our guiding objective. Our amendment would strengthen the direction of travel. It would also give the Oireachtas the tools and information needed to hold insurers to account and protect customers at a moment of major structural change. It is sensible, proportionate and responsible, and I urge that it be accepted. The Irish people deserve a health system they can trust without having to reach into their pockets for private insurance out of fear of endless queues. This is the challenge that is before us. It is one we must meet with urgency and ambition.”
“Ultimately, the long-term goal must be a public health service that is strong enough, fast enough and accessible enough for people so they no longer feel forced to buy health insurance just to access timely care. Affordable, efficient, universal public healthcare is not a radical idea - it is a standard across Europe. For too long people have been told to accept waiting lists as inevitable, but they are not. The high rate of private insurance uptake is in itself a mirror held up to Government policy. It is a reminder that the public system is failing to give people confidence and that has to change. Therefore, while we support the Bill, we do so in the context of a system badly in need of reform and accountability.”
“The HIA already publishes annual reports but this amendment would ensure that it would specifically examine the consequences for customers and not just the industry. While the removal of private healthcare from public hospitals is very positive, we must ensure that insurers cannot use it as an excuse to hike premiums. If costs go down for insurers, premiums must also go down for customers. If profits rise disproportionately, the Oireachtas must intervene. The amendment gives us the evidence base to do exactly that - to legislate if necessary and offset increased customer costs against industry profit levels and ensure no intended consequence of the system reform is allowed to quietly land on the shoulders of ordinary families.”
“That power exists for a reason – because the State must ensure that affordability and the public interest are not subordinate to corporate gain. The previous Government actually increased the allowable profit margin and that cannot continue unchecked. That brings me to the amendment I have tabled. It would require the Health Insurance Authority to produce a detailed report on the rising insurance costs, the level of industry profit and the potential impacts of removing private practice from public hospitals on future premiums. The amendment does not block the Bill. It does not interfere with the risk equalisation. It simply ensures the Oireachtas has full, transparent and independent information before it as the structure of the health system changes.”
“If done correctly, this should finally increase public capacity and reduce an overdependence on private insurance. However, we need to be honest. The benefit of this change will depend on how the Government manages the transition. Increased public capacity must actually result in more productivity, more theatre time, more diagnostics, more appointments and more beds being used efficiently or else nothing will change. The Bill adjusts credits and stamp duties in line with the annual requirements but households still face rising premiums, rising levies and rising cost pressures. The original legislation gives the Oireachtas the power to regulate the reasonable rate of profit in the insurance industry.”
“We have 300,000 people waiting for scans and over 40,000 people have been waiting more than 18 months just for imaging. That is indefensible. When people are waiting months just to get a diagnosis, they understandably feel they have no choice but to pay for health insurance. That is not a sustainable or fair model of healthcare. The truth is the Irish voluntary insurance model has for decades been facilitating a two-tier system where those who can pay jump the queue and those who cannot are left waiting. This continues to be an indictment of successive Governments’ failure to build a fully functioning universally accessible public health service. Private healthcare is now being removed from public hospitals. That is an important and welcome step.”
“I welcome the Minister of State and am pleased to contribute to the debate on the Bill, the annual legislation that renews and adjusts the risk equalisation scheme which underpins our community-rated private healthcare insurance market. Sinn Féin will support the Bill, as in previous years, and we do so while restating serious concerns about the direction of our healthcare system and the continuing reliance for so many families on private healthcare. As the Minister of State mentioned, almost half the population now hold private healthcare insurance. They pay a staggering €2.5 billion a year in premiums. This is not because people see private insurance as an optional extra or a luxury; it is because too many people simply cannot rely on the public system as it stands.”
“A united Ireland would not ignore those people. A united Ireland would not tell them to get over it. A united Ireland would say loudly and clearly: "Your loss mattered and we see you."”
“It becomes a promise that a parent’s experience will be recognised no matter where on this island they live, a promise of equality not only in sovereignty, but in empathy and a promise that compassion will not stop at a checkpoint on the M1. In building a united Ireland, we build a fair Ireland, a kinder Ireland, an Ireland that listens and an Ireland that values the intimate and devastating moments in people's lives. Today’s motion is about the future of this island, but let us never forget the future that is made up of the stories, grief and hopes of ordinary people. Today, those people are simply asking for recognition. In the North, they now have it. In Wales, it will be there soon. In England, they have it. In Scotland, they have it. It is time, and well past time, that we have it here too.”
“It is about ensuring that where you live does not determine whether your grief is acknowledged or ignored. It is about ensuring that no parent’s heartbreak is validated in Derry but dismissed in Donegal. When the North has advanced compassionate policies like this, and when the UK has long recognised the importance of certificates like this, it is indefensible that this State lags behind. The irony is that our own legislative framework already gestures towards the modernisation needed. The legislation we examined outlines provisions for such a certificate, but the actual scheme has yet to materialise. Families have waited long enough. This is where a united Ireland becomes more than aspiration - it becomes a promise.”
“Imagine a couple sitting in a waiting room after losing their deeply wanted pregnancy and being told that because their loss happened at 22 weeks and six days, their grief does not count. Now, overnight, we find ourselves in an extraordinary and, frankly, shameful position. On this island today, one side of the Border tells parents: "Your loss mattered, your grief is real and we honour it." South of that same Border, though, our Republic is telling them: "There is no recognition for you here." This is not just a policy gap; this is a human gap and a compassion gap, and it widens every day we fail to act. It gets to the core of why a united Ireland matters. A united Ireland is not merely about flags or borders. It is about harmonising rights, dignity and recognition for all people on this island.”
“We currently only recognise stillbirth after 23 weeks gestation, and anything before that is treated as a non-event. Families who lose a baby at five weeks, ten weeks or 20 weeks leave the hospital with nothing. There is no recognition, no validation and no acknowledgement that the life they hoped for ended too soon. We know from comparative evidence that England’s model requires no legislation and is entirely voluntary, with no time limit on when the loss occurred. Scotland operates a memorial book and provides commemorative certificates that, again, hold no legal status but hold enormous emotional and human value. These schemes exist because parents asked for them and their governments listened, but here in the South what do we tell parents? We tell them: "It just happens sometimes. Go home and move on." Imagine the cruelty of that.”
“Today, as we debate this vision and a practical way towards a united Ireland, I want to bring this conversation to a place where it is important - into the lived experiences of families, parents and women whose voices have been silenced for far too long. Yesterday, in the North, the Assembly passed the final stage of the baby loss certificate scheme. It is a compassionate, voluntary, non-legal certificate that simply says to bereaved parents:, "Your loss mattered and we see you." In the North, they have taken that step. In the UK, those schemes already exist. Yet here in the South, here in our own Republic, we still have no recognition whatsoever for pregnancy loss under 23 weeks. The research in our own pre-legislative scrutiny makes the gap crystal clear.”
“Before we move to the Minister of State I would like to welcome guests of Senator Eileen Flynn. They and their teachers are most welcome to the Gallery. As is the long-standing tradition, they will have no homework tonight and we hope they enjoy their day at Leinster House.”
“Before we move on to the next matter, I welcome our lovely guests, the fourth, fifth and sixth class pupils from Ballyvolane National School, Rusheen National School and Ballinagree National School, who are in the Gallery. It is lovely to see them. It is a long-standing tradition in the Seanad that they will have no homework tonight. I hope they enjoy that.”
“I thank the Minister of State. It is not her remit and it is not her Department but we are back to the exact same scenario where I am not getting the answers I am looking for. I do not need to know how Leap cards work. Everybody knows how Leap cards work. The issue is that students who get on at Millstreet station cannot use the Leap card. They know what Leap cards are. We are talking about Mallow to Cork, Midleton and Cobh but again, I do not need to know about those train stations. I am looking for the train to be put on from Banteer as it does not stop on Mondays. I will have to resubmit this Commencement matter because I am not getting the answers I am looking for. It is not the Minister of State's fault but is a load of waffle and it is not getting to the core of what I am asking. I will submit the Commencement matter again.”
“Essentially, I am asking that both of these issues, namely, Leap card access and the missing Monday train, be addressed. I am asking for clarity and a commitment for the students because it is unfair that because they live just a little bit outside the Leap card zone, they have to pay the full fare. We cannot access Leap cards in the area. This issue relates to my constituency but the same issue affects rural areas in different constituencies. Some clarity on that would be great.”
“Extending the Leap card to Millstreet Station is a simple administrative change which would have a substantial impact. Will the early train from Banteer to Cork be reintroduced? From Tuesday to Friday, the 6.50 a.m. train gets students to Cork in good time for their 9 a.m. lectures. On Monday, however, that service disappears. The alternatives are totally unworkable. The 5.32 a.m. train, which does not even stop in Banteer, arrives in Cork far too early and the 8.15 a.m. train, which arrives at 9.15 a.m., is far too late for students. Not a single student who responded to the survey said that the timetable on Monday works. There is a demand there for students. The service exists on four other days of the week, from Tuesday to Friday, but does not exist on Monday.”
“Some students reported paying for accommodation on a Sunday night purely because they cannot rely on the Monday morning train. Importantly, several families noted that without Leap card access at Millstreet Station, the cost of train travel is pushing students into cars and adding both financial and traffic pressure. These are not abstract complaints. Rather, they are real obstacles that young people in rural Ireland face every single day. My question to the Minister of State is this. Will the Leap card boundary be extended to Millstreet Station? It sits just outside the Leap card zone, which is unfair and illogical. Students in neighbouring parishes receive discounts and subsidised fares while families who use Millstreet Station have to bear the full cost of the same journey.”
“I did the survey across the Duhallow area to gather data on the lived experience. The response was overwhelming and I am happy to share it with the Department and officials. I will highlight the key findings from the survey. A significant majority of the respondents – the vast bulk of them – travelled to Cork for college, apprenticeships or post-leaving certificate courses at least four days per week. Many reported that Monday is the most difficult day of the week because there is no early train to Cork from Banteer or Millstreet stations, with options either being far too early or too late. Students told me they are regularly missing their 9 a.m. lectures on Monday despite having perfectly workable transport options from Tuesday to Friday.”
“I welcome the Minister of State. The last time I raised this matter, the Minister of State, Deputy Buttimer, was here. The question was around Leap cards and it was specific to Millstreet and Banteer stations in north Cork. While I received an answer, it had nothing to do with the question I asked. It talked about Kent and Midleton stations, neither of which is a concern for me or my constituents, to be honest. I raised the issue of the accessibility and use of Leap cards from Millstreet Station to Cork city as well as an issue with regard to trains at Banteer Station. At the time, the Minister of State, Deputy Buttimer, asked how many students were affected and I said I would do a survey, so I did. I got the survey results, and what they revealed was staggering, although it was something I already knew.”
“That is not what they ever are talking about. They are always talking about substance misuse. I have three different definitions from three different sources, including the HSE itself. We cannot sit here and ask what dual diagnosis means. Everybody knows exactly what it means in this context. If there is a dual diagnosis strategy in all the services the Minister of State is putting in place, why is it so hard to put it into this? I do not understand why it is so hard to name it because if we do not name it in the Mental Health Bill, it will keep being siloed. People will still go to mental health services and be told to go away and have their addiction treated.”
“Nobody is discrediting the work the Minister of State has done and all of that kind of stuff she has been talking about, but the reality on the ground is not what she is saying. It is not. People are dying every single day. I will go back to that dual diagnosis point. I gave the Minister of State three definitions of dual diagnosis and what exactly I mean. The World Health Organization defines dual diagnosis as "the co-occurrence in the same individual of a psychoactive substance use disorder and another psychiatric disorder". Are we going to dispute the World Health Organization right now and say that is not dual diagnosis? The Minister of State knows exactly what I am talking about. I very rarely, if ever, heard anybody use the term "dual diagnosis" to define somebody with two mental health issues.”
“They come into the service, they go back out, and either they get incredibly lucky and it is a stroke of luck that they get out of that service, or they die. It is as simple as that. This amendment protects the most vulnerable in our system and it is long overdue. I urge the Minister of State to accept the amendment. We have an opportunity here to name dual diagnosis in the Mental Health Bill for the first time. It is about time for it to happen because we can have an integrated strategy out there that has been launched but the integrated care is not happening down on the ground at all.”
“The amendment ensures there is a no wrong door approach. We talk about this all the time but people who have dual diagnosis, who have co-occurring disorders, need help. They need mental health services and the services need to work together at the same time. This Bill could be the thing that starts it. It is not going to fix it. The care is integrated across home, community and inpatient settings and it embeds best practice and compels inter-agency co-operation. The Minister of State cannot say that this Bill will protect people when she is not going to name dual diagnosis and she is going to leave those people out in the cold. They are going to fall through the cracks and they are going to die. That is exactly what happens. You see it every day.”
“Equally, the staff was afraid of him. On numerous occasions, he verbally abused me. On one occasion, I had to lock myself inside the office because he was going to physically attack me. I had to call the Garda and all the gardaí could do was remove him from the place. The following day I had to come in for my shift fearing for my life because I knew the minute he entered that service he would potentially attack me. This is the lived reality of people every day on the ground. We can create policies. We can create lofty documents and reviews, but if the Minister of State goes into any service that works with people at that level, they will tell her that they are expected to do everything with absolutely nothing. The Minister of State has the opportunity of a lifetime for a Minister to bring dual diagnosis into this.”
“For people who do not know what a low-threshold service is, it is where people are actively using substances every day. You are essentially fire-fighting the whole time. There is no room for therapeutic work because they do not have the capacity for it. We had one resident who lived there and addiction was the easiest thing to deal with. He had severe mental health issues. He should never have been in that service but he was there because no other service would have him. He was shut out from the mental health service and it was up to this homeless service to treat him. A lot of addiction services also have to treat people who have mental health issues because mental health services shut the door on them and they are left with nowhere to go. This individual was incredibly disruptive. The other residents who lived there were afraid of him.”
“9 and 44 introduce for the first time a statutory definition of dual diagnosis and guiding principles for integrated care. Dual diagnosis is not mentioned once in this Bill yet addiction and mental health go hand in hand. People self-medicate because they cannot access timely mental health supports and then they find themselves shut out of services because their addiction must be treated first. This is wrong. People fall between the cracks every day and they are left with neither service taking responsibility. The Minister of State stated in this debate that this Bill will care for all with mental health challenges, but people who have dual diagnosis are equally people who have mental health challenges and substance misuse. I am not talking from an abstract place here. I have worked in a low-threshold service.”
“In the context of what we are speaking about today, which is mental health, I thought it was pretty clear what dual diagnosis is but I will give the Minister of State three different definitions of dual diagnosis, in the context that I am talking about it. In the HSE, the term dual diagnosis is used to describe a person who presents with a co-occurring mental health disorder and a substance use disorder. Dual Diagnosis Ireland states, "'Dual diagnosis' is the term used when a person suffers from both a substance abuse problem and another mental health issue such as depression or an anxiety disorder." The World Health Organization defines a dual diagnosis as the "co-occurrence in the same individual of a psychoactive substance use disorder and another psychiatric disorder". Amendments Nos.”
“I move amendment No. 9: In page 16, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following: " "dual diagnosis" means the term used when a person experiences both a substance abuse problem and a mental health issue such as depression or an anxiety disorder. Treatment options must address both;". I welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber. At the outset, I want to say that we are legislators and our sole job here is to scrutinise the Bill that is before us. It is in no way an attack on the Minister of State personally. I know she has put a lot of work and a lot of time behind this. As anyone who has drafted Bills for the House will be aware, it takes a lot of time and you feel passionate about the things you are doing. In the previous debate that we had, the Minister of State asked me what is dual diagnosis.”
“We need resilience and a system that is flexible enough to ensure that one overcrowded emergency department does not bring the entire region to its knees. Ultimately and inevitably, the region needs another hospital. I know that is option C but it is needed, especially in light of current population growth. This is essentially about fairness and equality in services for people. A person's chance to get timely life-saving care should not depend on their postcode but, time and time again, we see that it does. The people in the mid-west deserve a health system that works and a Government that sees this not just as a regional problem, but as a national responsibility.”
“No other region has been expected to absorb the closure of multiple emergency departments without a corresponding investment in beds, staffing, diagnostics and community services. The result is predictable. We see overcrowding, dangerously long waiting lists and a level of strain that undermines the safety of patients every single day. Of course, this not about blaming front-line workers. They are performing miracles in impossible conditions. The issue is political will and planning. It is about the refusal of successive governments to accept what every clinician and every community in the mid-west has been saying, which is that the system just cannot cope. We need a fundamental shift. We need capacity and more beds, staff and diagnostics. We need real investment in step-down and community care.”
“I will share time with Senator Collins. I welcome the Minister and thank her for being here. What is happening in the mid-west is not a stand-alone issue. It is a symptom of a health system that is stretched to its limits and a government that has failed to match population growth with the necessary investment in critical infrastructure. For years now, the mid-west has had one of the most overcrowded emergency departments in the entire country. UHL has broken trolley records time and again. Staff are exhausted, patients are frightened and families are left in corridors for days. Communities across the mid-west have been raising the same alarm again and again. No other region in Ireland is operating under that kind of pressure.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”