The Minister has had a bad oul week and a half. This is bad as well. He will not have to bring in the Army for this one but you never know.

Sentiment score: -0.29

He will have an army of lawyers coming in. I jokingly suggested to the Minister before that he may prove to be the Manchurian candidate for the legal profession because, I will be honest with him, I do not think there is a hope in hell of this Bill working in the manner in which it has been presented. It is deeply confusing at times. Even with the some of current amendments, you could read through them and get a different view of what they mean the more you read them. That is just bad legislation. I have been knocking around here for nearly 20 years and this is one of the worst pieces of legislation I have ever seen drafted and it is because of political direction, not because of the people who are doing the drafting. That is on the Minister's head. We will be repeating what we have been saying here in the not too distant future because my colleagues who have spoken before me - I will not stress it again - have said how this has disregarded the democratic process, how we have not gotten through amendments and how the whole way in which this has been brought before the Houses has been a disgrace. That is all true but the ultimate thing is that this is the Minister's legislation and it is on his head. It is bad legislation. It is not going to work. There are so many people who have contacted probably all of us here. They are pointing out that they do not understand many components of this legislation and how they will work them. The Minister cannot say he has not been warned and time will tell whether he will be playing back what the three Deputies here, including myself, have said, that this is not good legislation. This is not the way to treat the Houses of the Oireachtas. It was impossible to scrutinise this and to go through all of its components. Definitions are confusing. The make-up of the Bill itself is even confusing. If we are confused, I do not know where it will go outside. When it comes to the issue of legal counselling, as I said before, my party is not shy of the legal profession either, and the Minister would know many of them. Essentially, they believe, with the amendments coming forward and the definitions, that it is even more confusing now. It is watery. As to where the legal parameters are as regards legal advice and legal counsel, I do not know why it was continued with and why we even bother with legal counsel. Why do we have this makey-uppy thing? We all know how to define legal advice but legal counsel is not defined in a way that it understandable. It is a makey-uppy term and we know the reasons for that but it is not acceptable. It will ensure there are huge legal challenges across the many stages for people who are seeking protection and it will make a lot of money for a lot of people in the Minister's former profession.

Sentiment score: -0.05

No. You have to play the percentages.

Sentiment score: 0.02

Hear, hear.

Sentiment score: 0.00