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 8 of 12.
“That pillar says when your reputation is on the line, it is your peers, not just the State, that should be trusted to decide the facts. What a defamation case is about is not numbers on a balance sheet, not abstract legal theory, but the value of your name, your character and your integrity. When they are called into question, people deserve the right to have their case heard not just by a judge but by a jury of their peers. If we remove juries, we are not just cutting costs; we are creating a democratic deficit. This is not just an abolition of choice. It is actually the abolition of a citizen's statutory right to seek a trial by jury. That right exists not just as a procedural option, but as a reflection of the fundamental democratic value that ordinary people share in the administration of justice.”
“(2) The court may, on the application of any party to a defamation action in the High Court, order that in matters which may involve substantial damages— (a) issues of fact shall be tried with a jury, and (b) the quantum of any damages which may arise be adjudicated by the presiding judge.”. My amendment seeks to restore some measure of balance and common sense to what has become a deeply flawed approach. The amendment is not just a technical fix. It is at the heart of protecting people's fundamental rights to vindicate their good names and to ensure that the process is fair, transparent and rooted in justice. The complete abolition of juries in High Court defamation cases as proposed by this legislation is not reform; it is actually rapture. It removes a pillar of our justice system that has stood the test of time.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 6, lines 26 to 28, to delete all words from and including “a” in line 26 down to and including line 28 and substitute the following: “the court may, on the application of any party to a defamation action in the High Court, or a question of fact or an issue arising in such an action, order that the action or any issue of fact in the action shall be tried without a jury if it is of opinion that such trial— (a) will require any protracted examination of documents or accounts or any technical, scientific or local investigation which cannot conveniently be made with a jury, (b) is for any special reason (to be mentioned in the order) unsuitable to be tried with a jury.”
“A review of the scheme was carried out last year and one of the key recommendations was to introduce regular reviews of the subsidy rate. It is pretty much time we acted on it. If we are serious about workplace diversity, fair wages and equal opportunity, this scheme does need to be strengthened and not allowed to stagnate. Therefore, I am asking the Leader for a full debate on the wage subsidy scheme and to include the need to index a subsidy rate to the minimum wage rate.”
“I propose that the Minister for Social Protection be invited to this House to debate the wage subsidy scheme for people with disabilities. This is a vital initiative that promotes inclusive employment and supports employers who are committed to providing equal opportunities. Currently, the scheme provides a subsidy of €6.30 per hour to non-public sector employees who hire people with disabilities. However, despite the 30% increase in minimum wage rates in recent years, the subsidy rate has remained unchanged. There is a growing gap that is creating significant pressure on employers, especially small businesses and social enterprises, and that may undermine the long-term impact and sustainability of the scheme.”
“I thank the Minister for his contribution. Before I move on to the first speaker, I welcome the lovely spectators in the Gallery. They are most welcome to the Upper House. I hope they enjoy the debate. The first speaker is Senator Rabbitte. She has ten minutes.”
“They are going to suffer the loss, the wait and the silence. That is the most tragic and saddest thing. However, as a cross-party Oireachtas group on pregnancy loss, we will continue to do what we can to raise those voices, even if the Government does not want to do it right now. I thank all the Senators for contributing on this. I really appreciate their support. We all know how important this is. We will plough on and make sure the women of Ireland are heard, regardless of whether the Government cares or not.”
“That would be great because many of us here are on that group and that engagement needs to happen. To the women who took the time to reach out to me, speak to me and share their experiences, their heartbreaking stories, their journeys, words and wisdom, please understand that we hear and we see you. We care and we understand. I promise on the record of the House that in 12 months' time I will resurrect this Bill. Anybody who knows me knows I damn well will. I am really disappointed that the Government has tabled its amendment to delay this legislation. We can see it has been enacted across the water. If it can be done elsewhere, I do not understand the reason for the delay here. Women throughout Ireland will have miscarriages today, tomorrow, next week and every single day of the next 12 months while this Bill is delayed.”
“Women in the Gallery, women I have met and talked to and hundreds of women and their partners who are watching these proceedings have that sinking feeling because they know this cannot progress now. I was not asking for the world. We were not asking for the world. Legislation takes considerable time. There was nothing stopping anybody from letting this move to Committee Stage, where we could have hashed it out. It is a massive trend that every single Bill we in the Opposition bring forward is pushed back. At the very beginning of this term we all stood up and said we wanted to work collaboratively. Where is the collaboration? It is not happening here. In the Minister’s closing statement he mentioned he has been engaging with the Oireachtas cross-party pregnancy group. Which group is that? Could I get a point of clarity on that?”
“I thank everyone who contributed and who has been supportive of this from the get-go. I appreciate it. There is a lot of work to do and I am sure we can do a lot of work together. The Minister referred to one in five women and a gestation of 24 weeks. That does not give me a whole pile of hope because it is one in four and the relevant period of gestation has changed to 23 weeks. He also referred to a strategy, but a strategy is only as good as the paper it is printed on if it is not enacted. What the Government is saying to women throughout Ireland right now is that it does not care enough. It really does not care enough. It is just going to throw it down the road and let it die. The Government might come in with something itself. There is no sense of urgency.”
“To delay the Bill is to traumatise even more women. Every parent deserves recognition and every loss deserves dignity. Every person navigating grief deserves time, space and care, and all of our support.”
“The Bill has been informed by countless conversations with advocacy groups such as Féileacáin, the Miscarriage Association, clinicians, researchers and many grieving families. Countless women have been met with coldness when they try again. Some have to beg for investigations. One woman who delivered at 22 weeks was told funerals were only for real people. Another woman who had the ashes of her 22-week-old baby and wanted to take them on a flight was told she could not board with the ashes because she did not have a death certificate. This is what women are suffering today. I want to be clear to my colleagues and everyone contributing on the Bill that it is not party political. This is not a party political matter. I hope the House will support the Bill. We can improve it, make progress in the Chambers and shape public awareness together.”
“Women and partners spoke about the absence of paid leave, the lack of information and the emotional distress of returning to work too soon, often in silence and often unsupported. One of its key recommendations is clear; this is the introduction of medically certified paid statutory leave for pre-viability pregnancy loss. The Bill delivers exactly this. The RE:CURRENT project evaluated services from people experiencing recurrent pregnancy loss and found serious gaps. Only half of maternity units in the country offer specialist clinics for recurrent miscarriage. Psychologist supports are limited or non-existent, and too often the care provided lacks the sensitivity and consistency the loss demands. The Bill does not fall into the category of "nice to have".”
“They are rooted in best international practice. In England and Scotland parents can receive a formal baby loss certificate for losses before 24 weeks. In New Zealand paid leave after miscarriage is already in place. In Australia workers are entitled to leave following pregnancy loss. In the North of Ireland our Sinn Féin colleagues have pushed for cross-party momentum towards a baby loss certificate scheme to give families the recognition they deserve. We believe the State should afford no less here. The Bill is built on the findings of ground-breaking Irish research, including the PLACES project and the RE:CURRENT project led by UCC's pregnancy loss research group. The PLACES project highlights the profound impact of pregnancy loss on working lives.”
“The Bill also proposes a voluntary and confidential pregnancy loss register. This is incredibly important. The State does not recognise losses prior to 23 weeks. People are supposed to just carry on and pretend nothing happened. There are also legal protections in the Bill. Pregnancy loss is one of the most common forms of bereavement but one of the least recognised in society and law. The statistic of one in four women experiencing pregnancy loss is not a true statistic because it does not take into account women who miscarry at home, those who have missed miscarriages and other cases. Behind the statistics are thousands of stories of grief, silence and people returning to work with empty arms and aching hearts because the law makes no space for their pain. The proposals in the Bill are not radical.”
“We are debating the Bill today and this week we had fresh validation from across the Irish Sea, as on 6 July 2025 the UK Government announced that parents who suffer miscarriages before 24 weeks will be entitled to at least one week's bereavement leave, with full legal rights for mothers and partners in upcoming employment reforms. This follows earlier recommendations by two UK MPs for two weeks of paid leave for miscarriage losses. It is a change that underscores the physical and emotional toll of early pregnancy loss. The shift reflects an evolving understanding that pregnancy loss pre-24 weeks in the UK is not a clinical event but is very traumatic and deserving of protection. The Bill before the House echoes this with regard to 23 weeks in this country. It proposes paid leave of five days for women and 2.5 days for their partners.”
“It was horrifying because I did not understand what would happen to me emotionally afterwards; how I would be so envious, how I would not want to leave the house, how everything would be a trigger, how I thought I would go crazy and how I thought I was going crazy. I felt so isolated and so alone in the process. This was the case until I spoke to other women who said they had had a miscarriage too but had never told anybody. This happens an awful lot, more than we understand or more than we have statistics for. Women have been suffering alone for a long time. This Bill is rooted in lived experience, driven by evidence and shaped by compassion. This is the big thing here. It begins with a simple and powerful truth, which is that every loss matters, no matter what loss it is.”
“Nobody told me I would have enough amniotic fluid that, when the medical intervention worked, my waters would break. Nobody told me that I would pass the pregnancy when I was sitting on the toilet, that I would not know what to do, that I would be distraught, crying and panicking while sitting there, and that all I could do was flush. Nobody told me I would have to go back and be told I had to do it again because there was still residue left. After all of this, I had to go back one last time, when I was told the best time for me to try to get pregnant was right now because I was the most fertile for the first three months after the miscarriage. As a woman who has gone through something like that, the last thing you are thinking of is getting pregnant again.”
“I parked my car and I had to call my fiancé and my mother to tell them what was going on, that I was miscarrying. The following morning I went back to CUMH and got the confirmation. They did the internal scan and told me I was miscarrying. I was given my options. Women in that situation can have D and C, which can be very invasive and can cause tears, or take medical intervention or just let it pass naturally. I chose the option of medical intervention but I was not told anything about what was going to happen when I did that or how it would affect me physically. I was told it was going to be like a bad period. I went home and took my medical intervention. I had to call CUMH because I was not sure if what I was experiencing was normal.”
“I knew deep down what was happening but I begged and pleaded with everybody just to make sure this was not happening. I went back into CUMH and I sat in the little waiting area. There were mothers coming out with babies, and I was bleeding. I had to go to the bathroom to show them that I was actually miscarrying. They had to see that evidence, which was not the most humane thing to make me do. I had my scan and I was told it did not look like the baby had progressed beyond the seven-week mark. It was not where it should have been. I went home and had to go back to CUMH the next day to get an internal scan to confirm this. That drive home was the worst drive I have ever had. I do not think I have ever had an experience like it. I had to drive back home by myself.”
“This is happening." I was told there was nothing to worry about and I could go home, so I did. Naturally, as you progress through the pregnancy, people tell you not to tell anybody because the 12-week mark is the safe mark, after which nothing can go wrong. After a woman gets to 12 weeks, she is in the safe zone. I told my closest family members and friends. It is not inconceivable to become excited and want to buy little gifts as the woman goes through this. I booked my 12-week scan for the Tuesday. On the Sunday before my 12-week scan, I woke up at 5 o'clock in the morning. I had cramps before I went to sleep and when I woke up that morning, I just knew something was wrong. I pulled back my sheets and I was covered in blood. I was alone, so I got into my car and drove myself to CUMH. It was the most torturous drive of my life.”
“I was distressed. I could not sleep that night. I spent the whole night crying because I thought this was the worst-case scenario. I went back to CUMH and the early pregnancy unit the following morning and went into the clinic, where I was sitting among women who were also getting various scans. They may have had bad news or good news; I did not know. I remember sitting across from a woman who was crying her eyes out. She was sitting there by herself; there was nobody there with her, and I just thought that could be me next after I went in for that scan. I went in and they did an internal scan and I was shown the heartbeat for the first time. Everything felt amazing. Any woman who has had children knows that first scan and the feeling of, "Oh my God, this is real.”
“For me, in my very first pregnancy, I did not even fathom that miscarriage could happen. It did not even enter my stratosphere. I went to the emergency department in CUMH, where I spent about five hours waiting to get an ultrasound scan. The maternity ward in CUMH has women at different stages of pregnancy, and obviously the emergency unit has women who are worried and waiting for scans. I was sitting in that environment. I went for my scan and they told me they could not see anything. They could not see any baby or fluid or sac or anything. I was sent home after being told that I would have to go back to the early pregnancy unit in Cork the following day. The Minister of State can imagine the worry I had when I was sent home. Having been told they could not see anything, I thought I was losing the baby. There was nothing visible.”
“I am holding a copy of my seven-week scan. It is the only evidence I have that my pregnancy ever existed. I am not alone in this. I actually count myself lucky. On 22 March last year, my 31st birthday, I found out that I was pregnant. Whenever any woman finds out that she is pregnant and looks at that positive test, she naturally maps out a life for that child. She maps out his or her future, hopes, dreams, names and all of that. I was very naive about pregnancy and what that entailed because it was my first time. I had gone to the GP and done my check-ups and everything was great. At seven weeks I began to bleed. I did not know what was normal and what was not, so I went back to my GP and was told that it just happens sometimes to some women and if a miscarriage was to happen, there was nothing I could do about that anyway.”
“This is a chance to get the balance right between protecting reputations, safeguarding public interest journalism and ensuring access to justice for all. I hope the Minister will reflect on this and that we can all work in this House together to get it right.”
“We support all the other reforms in the Bill, including the stronger provisions to tackle strategic lawsuits against public participation and making mediation more accessible through safeguards to ensure victims of abuse, coercion or control are not retraumatised by mandatory processes. However, we cannot accept a Bill that strips out public participation in a justice process, especially when it comes to reputation. We tabled amendments, including one that would allow a judge to determine whether a jury is appropriate in a given case, rather than having a blanket ban. That is a sensible, middle-ground approach to this. We do not want to undermine public confidence in our legal system in the name of procedural convenience.”
“It is about a person's good name, standing, integrity and identity. Who better to adjudicate on whether a reputation has been harmed than a jury of one's peers? We are not blind to the challenges. Delays, costs and procedural complexities are real, but they are not unique to defamation and they are not caused by juries alone. If delays were reason enough to eliminate fundamental rights, we would be in very dangerous territory. There are solutions that do not require removing juries altogether. Hybrid models exist, for example, where juries determine liability and judges determine quantum. These are used in other jurisdictions and could prove to be a compromise in this.”
“We all recognise that defamation trials can result in inconsistent and sometimes excessive awards, but instead of addressing the causes by reforming how damages are assessed, for instance, the Government is proposing to take a sledgehammer to a core principle of our legal system. As others have said, this would leave Ireland a complete outlier among common law jurisdictions. The move is not backed by the legal community. The Law Society, the Bar of Ireland and the Judiciary have all expressed concerns about this shift. The Government's pre-legislative scrutiny report urged against this step, yet we are now being asked to accept a Bill that cuts the voice of the public from some of the most sensitive, high-stakes cases before the courts. Defamation is not just a false statement.”
“I thank the Minister for being here. It is good to see him back before the House. I am delighted to contribute to the debate on the Defamation (Amendment) Bill. Defamation reform is long overdue. The current framework under the 2009 Act has proven to be expensive, slow and in many ways inaccessible, especially for ordinary people trying to defend their names. However, the Bill in its current form gets one major thing fundamentally wrong. That is the proposal to abolish juries from High Court defamation trials. We stand firmly opposed to this move, not because we are resistant to change but because we believe the right to have one's reputation judged by a jury of peers is not just a procedural preference, it is a cornerstone of justice. Removing juries does not fix the problem, it dodges it.”
“It is easier to cut a ribbon than to fund a clinic. It is easier to talk about a strategy than actually put your shoulder to the wheel. Real leadership means facing the reality that we have failed to address the drugs crisis with the urgency it demands . We have heard it here about these people. It is everywhere. We all know people and families who are struggling with this. The next strategy cannot be a document full of ambition but empty of action. It must be brave. It has to be funded, community rooted and unapologetic about being health led. If we do not change course we will keep burying people and their blood would be on the hands of a State that knew and yet did too little.”
“Not only are they subjected to trauma themselves in taking on a lot of people, they are not even paid properly for it. The strategy should be progressing in tandem with the work of the Oireachtas Committee on Drugs Use, and if that is not happening, the draft strategy must take into account the final report from the group. That is a must. To date, the committee has met privately to scope and shape the work plan, but future meetings will need to invite a broad range of stakeholders, such as we have been talking about the past while, and that work should, in turn, inform the strategy. A clear timeline is not just helpful for us, it is actually essential for us. This is not just about policy, it is about political will. Right now, the State is spending more money policing drug users than helping them recover.”
“The stakeholders the committee members have previously met, from outreach workers to service providers, are deeply concerned about the lack of consultation. They are the people on the cold front of this crisis and their insights are not optional. They are essential to this. The lack of communication on a strategy process is alarming. Across both section 38 and 39 organisations, the core issues of funding, staffing and the ability to retain skilled workers - the pay in these places is abysmal - have been the same for decades. We are asking an addiction counsellor who is qualified and who has spent thousands to work at basic pay with absolutely no job security. That is ridiculous. It is no wonder that people do not stay in these jobs.”
“It is obviously not going to happen overnight but we have been talking about a Cork injection centre for years and there is still no sign of that coming down the line for us. We need investment in trauma-informed community responses that recognise addiction is not just around drug use but is rooted in poverty, mental ill-health and generational trauma and harm that happens to people. Equally, we need to look at what happens next because right now we do not have a clear timeline for the publication of the draft strategy. The Minister of State mentioned it would be at the end of this year, and that is great, but we asked this question in the drug committee and we did not have a timeline then.”
“This is not just me criticising but giving out lived and real experience for the people on the ground. We need to stop pretending that we are ahead of the curve; we are not. While the Government can make statements, communities are being left to fight this alone. What we are calling for is a properly resourced national strategy, with ring-fenced and multi-annual funding. That is really crucial for people. Ad hoc services just do not work. They are not fair on people. We need a model of decriminalisation for personal use based on the recommendations of the citizens' assembly, so that we are moving such use out of the criminal system and looking at a health-led approach, where it actually belongs. We need rapid access to detox and rehab in most regions.”
“Meanwhile, our community projects, the people who do the real front-line work, are burning out. They are running out of short-term funding and dealing with ad hoc pilots and empty promises. As the Minister of State knows, the European drugs report for this year stated plainly that we are dealing with increasingly potent drugs. They are rapidly shifting markets and the vulnerable are prey for violent networks, often recruiting children to social media to sell and deliver drugs. I am not coming from this from an abstract place. I am coming from the front line. I have been in drug and alcohol services. I have worked in homeless services and with the people on the front line. I have been delivering education for the last ten years in schools. I have worked with teenagers.”
“Where is the detox and rehabilitation centre outside of Dublin? Where are the wraparound services for young people at risk of being groomed into the drug trade? Where is the investment in harm reduction and recovery, not just enforcement? According to the 2024 Irish national drugs report, 44% of users report using three or more substances. Polydrug use is the norm in our society; it is not the exception any more. Cocaine is often used with alcohol and cannabis is used to manage anxiety, sleep and depression, yet the mental health services are siloed off from addiction care. Even among teenagers, 22% of boys and 14% of girls aged 15 to 17 say they have used cannabis in the last year. One third of drug users in a web survey reported using ketamine in the past year, a figure well above the European average.”
“I want to talk about this because we recently had officials before the drugs committee who have not used that funding for a national campaign. The Minister of State would be well aware of HHC and the effects it has. I queried the officials on why they have not started the campaign because I do not know what they are waiting for. Are they waiting for somebody to die before they actually roll it out? We are halfway into 2025 and still we have not seen a campaign around that. There is also €500,000 for harm reduction initiatives. That gives €4 million as a top-up in total. For a crisis that is killing hundreds, traumatising thousands and hollowing out entire communities, a single road upgrade project costs a whole lot more than that. The strategy talks about a health-led approach but where is the health-led infrastructure to back that up?”
“In 2023 alone, there were nearly 5,000 cases treated for the use of cocaine, a substance now deeply rooted and embedded in our communities. Rural, urban, working-class, affluent - you name it - it is there and it is everywhere. In November 2023, 57 overdoses were recorded in just three days in Dublin due to nitazenes, synthetic opioids more powerful than fentanyl, with a similar alert issued in Cork shortly afterwards. What has the financial response to this kind of crisis been? Last year, an additional €4 million was allocated on top of the budget for drug-related prevention services. Some €2 million of that was to expand community-based drug services, €1 million was to roll out alcohol treatment services and €500,000 was for a national drug prevention campaign.”
“I thank the Minister of State for being here today. There is no doubt that there is good work being done by a lot of people across the board. As we mark the end of the national drugs strategy, we are compelled to ask what has really changed, what progress have we made and, crucially, where have we failed. If this strategy is coming to a close, we owe it to the people affected, those in addiction, the families who are grieving and the workers on the ground to be honest about the state of play. I will begin with some numbers. It varies year on year but over 300 people die from drug-related causes in Ireland every year. That is almost one a day depending on the year. Almost 20,000 people in Ireland are classed as problematic opioid users.”
“While today's regulations mark a step in the right direction, the truth is that it should not take pressure from Brussels for Ireland to do the right thing. We should lead by example when it comes to data protection, especially in a world where digital surveillance, data profiling and algorithmic discrimination are growing threats. We have been reactive instead of proactive. While we support the motions, we continue to scrutinise how the State handles personal data because no Government, regardless of who is in power, should be allowed to write itself a blank cheque to interfere with people's fundamental rights. The message has to be clear. Data protection is not a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise. It is about power and how that power is used, checked and held to account.”
“Each set of the regulations is near identical and imposes basic but important obligations, which are mainly that data subjects are informed when their rights are being restricted, that any restrictions imposed must be time-limited and proportionate, and that the relevant offices publish their policies and procedures related to these restrictions. These are welcome additions, but, quite frankly, they are the bare minimum in terms of what we should be expected to do in a functioning democracy. Transparency, accountability and respect for rights are not optional; they are foundational. From a Sinn Féin perspective, we believe in a rights-based approach to governance and that includes data rights. The Government's initial approach, which, in effect, enabled State bodies to exempt themselves from GDPR protections, is quite concerning.”
“What rights were potentially on the chopping block? They were the right to be informed, the right access one’s own data, the right to rectification and the right to erasure. These are not fringe rights. They are fundamental protections under Articles 12 to 24, inclusive, and 34 of the GDPR, rights that protect our privacy, dignity and autonomy in the digital age. A blanket exemption would be a direct breach of Article 23 of the GDPR. The regulations we are debating today apply to three public bodies, as the Minister of State mentioned: the Data Protection Commission, the Office of the Information Commissioner, and the Comptroller and Auditor General.”
“I welcome the Minister of State back to the House. I rise to speak on the motion concerning the draft regulations under section 60(4) of the Data Protection Act 2018. Sinn Féin will be supporting these regulations, but it is important that we are honest about why they are being introduced and what they represent. These regulations are being brought forward not because of a sudden commitment by Government to strengthen the data rights of our citizens but because the European Commission raised concerns about the compatibility of our legislation with GDPR. Specifically, the Commission was concerned that section 60(3) of the Act would be interpreted as giving the State a blanket exemption that would allow the Government bodies to bypass core data rights without having to assess the necessity or proportionality of these restrictions.”
“The proposal outlines clear practical steps for delivering a world-class, universal and integrated health service across the island, one that includes a ministerial health body with cross-Border oversight, a single all-island waiting list system, shared workforce planning, digital infrastructure, emergency service alignment and a rural health commission to ensure that rural communities do not get left behind. These are not vague ambitions. They are costed, evidence-based proposals that could improve outcomes for patients, staff and communities alike. I ask the Leader to arrange a debate with the Minister to show people that cross-Border co-operation is not just possible but essential for a healthier and fairer Ireland in the future.”
“I am calling for the Minister for Health to come to the House for a debate on the future of healthcare on our island. We recently launched a proposal that put the case for an Irish national health and care service. In the context of the increasing discussion around a future united Ireland, healthcare will be one of the defining issues for our people, North and South. It is not sustainable, nor does it make sense for an island of just 7 million people, to maintain two fragmented health systems, both struggling under pressure.”
“The Irish people elected us to make decisions in this Chamber, not to outsource those decisions to Brussels behind closed doors. Sinn Féin calls on the Government to withdraw these opt-ins under Article 3 and to reserve our right to make decisions under Article 4 with full information and proper scrutiny. Once we sign up under Article 3, that is it. There is no room for change and no room to opt out. That is not how migration policy should be made; it should be made in sovereignty in a democratic state. For that reason, Sinn Féin will vote against all three motions. I urge others in the House to do the same.”
“Now, ironically, the EU is proposing that this plan end, which is exactly what we had called for. This transition should be led by the Government based on what is right for Ireland and not by following a co-ordinated EU plan that may not reflect the unique pressures we face from housing to integration. We also cannot forget that temporary protection created a two-tier system here in Ireland and that schemes like the ARP exacerbated rental markets, offering supports not available to other people in housing distress. We need a transition but we also need control over how that transition happens. Signing up to an EU-wide approach under Article 3 would remove that control. We can do better for people. This debate is not about opposing the principles behind these regulations. It is about process, sovereignty and democratic accountability.”
“Again, however, the EU regulation would take things further, removing the requirement for there to be a clear connection between the applicant and the third country. That regulation seeks to make transit through a country proof of connection and, therefore, the safe third country concept could be invoked. Again, if we want to adopt our laws in a way that reflects Irish values and serves our system, we can do that ourselves. What we should not do is lock ourselves into a one-size-fits-all EU measure under Article 3 before the final text is even clear. The third motion concerns the transition from temporary protection. Sinn Féin has opposed the extension of the temporary protection directive to 2027. We said it was not sustainable and we were criticised for that.”
“Sinn Féin supports the use of accelerated procedures in these cases to ensure efficiency and integrity in our system. There is no added value, though, in surrendering this power to the EU. In fact, doing so could hinder our ability to make decisions based on the realities here on the ground, which may differ significantly from those of the larger Schengen states. If we already have the tools, and we do, why would we give the power away? Why allow a Brussels-wide list to override decisions made here by a Government accountable to the Irish people? The second motion deals with safe third countries. This concept is already in Irish law. In fact, as the Minister mentioned, the UK is currently the only area designated as a safe third country. Recent legislative changes were made to facilitate this following legal challenges.”
“The three motions before us deal with the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin at Union level, the application of the safe third country concept and the transition out of temporary protection for those displaced by the war in Ukraine. Each of these is important and deserves proper scrutiny and decisions that should be made here in the Chamber and not imposed by a majority vote in Brussels. I will deal with each motion in turn. Starting with that relating to safe countries of origin, Ireland already has the power to designate countries as safe for the purposes of international protection. That is provided to us under the International Protection Act 2015. We currently have 15 such countries, as the Minister outlined, including Albania, Georgia and Brazil.”