Hear, hear.
Sentiment score: 0.00
The speaking order should go this way.
Sentiment score: 0.00
Deputy Ward can go ahead. We have loads of time.
Sentiment score: 0.00
If my colleague calls a vote on section 1, we will definitely support it. I think I am the longest serving Member in the Chamber at the moment, and it is on that basis that I say this is not the way to do legislation. That is no criticism of the officials who are here, who get directions on the basis of the timelines given to them by the Ministers. This is crazy stuff, as everyone has said. That we are going to debate this for eight hours non-stop is not good for legislation. We will be doing the same next week by all accounts, if not longer. There will probably be guillotines used, which obviously we will oppose. This is such important legislation. This should be put through the wringer of normal committee processing so we can go into it in detail. Trying to go through everything that has been ruled out of order and everything that has been grouped together is like trying to do a mathematical equation. Some of the groupings do not make much sense. I do not blame those who were putting these lists together in the Bills Office because they were trying their best at the last minute, frankly. This is becoming a bit of a habit from the Minister's Department in relation to lots of different things. I do not know what is going on as regards competency, or whether it is direction from the Minister or what the hell is going on, but this is no way to do legislation. To be frank, it is no way for a Department to be run or for officials to be directed. It is not the first time I have had to say this. As legislators, we need to do things properly. Otherwise, mistakes will be made. I have said that before and I will say it again. I am firmly of the view that we will be reviewing this legislation when lots of things are tested in the courts and other places in relation to its actual capacity to be implemented. There are two issues. First, can it functionally be implemented and done in the timelines required? Will the resources be there? Second, is it legally sound? Being honest, I have serious concerns about the capacity for both.
Sentiment score: -0.00
Come on Tipp.
Sentiment score: 0.00
We could also do with consistency with regard to the Chair. There are a lot of changes and there are multiple Members making Second Stage speeches.
Sentiment score: 0.00
We need some consistency.
Sentiment score: 0.00
It is not grouped.
Sentiment score: 0.00
I cannot see why this amendment was ruled out compared to the other one. The Minister is too proud. The Minister started down the road here in relation to "legal counselling", which should be thrown out. When we looked at this, it took up hours. We still do not bloody well know what it is. We genuinely do not. Nobody here has a clue. Nobody who is working in law has a clue. Why is it in the Bill? It is ridiculous. I am sorry, but the Minister should say he has got that one wrong and we will all move on. He was fairly sharp and straight with us last week on another issue when he brought in legislation that he did not even believe in.
Sentiment score: -0.00
It is relevant because now the Minister is bringing in a term that he does not even believe in. We need a bit of levity here. We are going to be here too long. The Minister let out a little nugget out earlier when he said that more amendments will be brought through the Seanad. Why are they being brought through the Seanad? We have eight hours here today, another day here next week and - God knows - maybe even longer. Can the Minister not muster to take this out, because it is a halfway house to nowhere? It is hindering the Bill. It is hindering the discussion. As I said to the Minister previously, it will probably create a condition where the Minister will be the Manchurian candidate, as the justice Minister, giving a whole load of money to a lot of his ex-colleagues to determine what the hell this means in this Bill because nobody knows. In fairness to Deputy Carthy and the team, they have put in a definition that has got through. Others have tried and failed, for whatever reason. This will end up with vulnerable people who have problems with language not knowing exactly what is going on. They will go through the rabbit hole of legal counselling rather than receiving proper legal advice, which as we all know is defined. We will have a situation where this will have to be determined by the courts. There is a need for a little bit of common sense. Everybody should be on the one page here. The Minister should either define it, which I do not think is the right way to go but I will support as the lesser of two evils, or get rid of it. It is ridiculous. It is not helping anybody and will not help anybody into the future.
Sentiment score: -0.05
Take it from me, so.
Sentiment score: 0.00
That is a common thing in here.
Sentiment score: 0.00
That is a bit condescending now.
Sentiment score: 0.00
I do not.
Sentiment score: 0.00
You might explain amendment No. 9 then as well.
Sentiment score: -0.01
Have we finally found a use for Grok? This is where we are going with this - seriously. As I look around the room, the Minister is probably the most qualified legal person in here, I would suspect. How did we get to this point on Committee Stage, after pre-legislative scrutiny and Second Stage, where we have not defined this? I am looking forward to seeing why my amendment was ruled out of order, but I basically just ripped it from the asylum procedure regulation, which the Minister has mentioned. It was a copy and paste; there is no big science to it. If the Minister is not going to come back with that, on how it is going to be implemented, then I am genuinely flummoxed about where he is going to go with this. My colleague has spoken about legal regression, and we cannot have that, but how are we going to define who can give such advice within this State? Can I, as a TD? Will it be civil society through citizens information? Is this where we are going or, as Deputy Gannon has said, is it to be the Groks of this world? How do we define it? Under the asylum procedure Regulation 2024/1348 providers and counselling can be provided by accredited civil society organisations, specialised legal advisers or government authorities provided they meet national qualification standards. We cannot even get proper accreditation in this country for translation services. We do not have it and I think it is actually going to cause a lot of legal issues in cases in the years to come. How are we going to ensure that the standard stated in the regulations is met? Will the Minister please outline to us three things? First, where will he bring forward this amendment, why is it not in the Dáil phase and why has it gone on for so long? Second, is he going to use the wording I pulled from the regulation I just quoted? Third, as part of that, how is he going to define the organisations or, dare I say it, the technologies that can actually give such legal counselling?
Sentiment score: 0.03
The committee meeting this week makes a mockery of what the Minister is proposing. Civil legal aid is basically about to collapse. I accept some of the pressures are brought about by changes internationally over recent years. The Minister is patting himself on the back because of the increase he got from Government but it needs to be multiples of that. In the long run, it will save the State. It is also just the right thing to do. The fraction of money given to this is actually disgraceful. I am really looking forward to the explanation for my amendment not being accepted. If it had been accepted, it probably would have helped the Minister. It is effectively, according to what he just said, what he will bring in anyway. I presume he will use the asylum procedures regulation, APR, definition. That is probably the safest thing to do, so why in the name of God can he not bring it in now or on Report Stage - or will he have add-ons? The idea that only paralegals will be doing this is not realistic; neither is it in the scope of what the APR says. I read out earlier what the APR says in relation to civil organisations. How will he cover that? Is he going to stick to what the APR says? If he is, there is no reason he cannot bring it in now. I had an amendment basically bringing it in. Will he in some way customise, change or tailor it to our society? Will that include citizens information and all that sort of stuff? Will he clarify that? The fact this is all being thrown on the Legal Aid Board otherwise will not work. The whole thing will collapse. The Minister can smile all he wants but this will collapse. There is not a hope in hell of it working. If all that is the case, the fact the Department has not dealt with this until now is symbolic of the much more worrying issue of how in the name of God this legislation will ever be legally sound and resourced.
Sentiment score: 0.01
Why not bring it forward now, so?
Sentiment score: 0.00
I move amendment No. 8: In page 23, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: "(2) A reference in this Act to a ‘measure of last resort’ means, in relation to an adult or a child, a measure that is taken only after all non-custodial alternatives to detention have been duly considered, in accordance with Recital 33 and Article 10(2) of the Reception Conditions Directive.". This amendment defines "measure of last resort" to ensure that "non-custodial alternatives" are enshrined in the Bill. We are spending an awful lot of time in here on definitions, and here we go again. The amendment states: A reference in this Act to a 'measure of last resort' means, in relation to an adult or a child, a measure that is taken only after all non-custodial alternatives to detention have been duly considered, in accordance with Recital 33 and Article 10(2) of the Reception Conditions Directive. As the House knows, this directive ensures that on reception, people have access to appropriate food, clothing, housing, etc., and have the right to access work within six months. What we are trying to do is to define in exact terms what this means so that we do not run into other issues throughout the rest of the Bill. It is critical that we do so. We are getting into new territory with this Bill as regards the role of detention. To ensure the Bill is legally robust, the amendment is critical. The amendment will also ensure that we are going down the right road when it comes to the issue of the detention of vulnerable people and, indeed, children. The definition carries on. We need to ensure that we look at all alternatives available to the State in relation to how we treat people once they arrive in our country, the processes we put them through and the places in which we put them. I am and my party are not satisfied from a definition point of view that this is dealt with adequately enough in the Bill and that is why I am putting forward this amendment. I hope the Minister looks on it favourably.
Sentiment score: -0.02
Hear, hear.
Sentiment score: 0.00
We need a definition. We in the Labour Party included this amendment because we felt we are now crossing into a new level we have never before dealt with in the State in respect of holding people, including children, who are vulnerable. This is going down a road which is unacceptable to many. I listened to what the Minister said. Some of what he said I genuinely accept, when he includes the three provisos. The third is very subjective. I accept he referred to all three. The third one is quite subjective and that is worrying. If the Minister will not accept my amendment, which I will press, he may want to consider bringing forward something in the Seanad. It looks like he is not doing anything on Report Stage because he wants to pass the Bill next week. We have a new departure and need to ensure that the most vulnerable, including children, who will be in this situation are protected to the nth degree. That is why we have taken quite a long period of time to put forward this amendment. We did so because as a party we thought it was important that this was prescribed and defined. This is a can of worms that the Minister does not want to open. If he does not get this right, it will cause significant issues for very vulnerable people, including children under the protection of the State. We need to be very clear and defined as to how we will deal with this through this definition.
Sentiment score: 0.13
I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle-----
Sentiment score: -0.08
For complete clarity, if the wording "free of charge" was not in the amendment, the likelihood is that these amendments could have been accepted.
Sentiment score: 0.80
Yes, I understand.
Sentiment score: 0.40
We are always learning in this place, trust me.
Sentiment score: 0.51
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for that clarification.
Sentiment score: 0.36
This needs to be defined. We cannot leave this loose. We already had a discussion on the previous amendment in relation to how we are moving into new territory as regards detaining children. It is never good when children are being detained. It is not acceptable. However, we also have to have a definition as regards what we are doing to include the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in the application of the Act's provision by inserting a definition into the interpretation section so that it will run throughout the Bill. I will not repeat it but my colleague referred to Article 3 of the UNCHR, the EU Charter and everything else. The reality is that this is quite a defining component. Ultimately, the best interests of the child should be the defining statement of how we pursue this legislation from here on in. We cannot allow it to be loosely understood. We cannot allow it to be undefined. This is a critical decision. If the Minister is not going to accept our amendment here and now, he is going to have to have to bring forward something in relation to this issue. There will be an outcry if he does not. It does need definition. We have put this forward because we believe this is the best way in which we can deal with it. These are not circumstances under which we want to be doing this but we have to do it. I ask that the Minister really consider this amendment. It is probably one of the most important amendments to this whole Bill that is being brought forward.
Sentiment score: -0.01
I move amendment No. 13: In page 25, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following: “(2) Where an officer of the Minister, pursuant to any enactment or rule of law, performs a function conferred on the Minister by virtue of subsection (1), the officer is independent in the performance of that function.”. The structure of decision-making in individual international protection application cases has changed over the years. Under the Refugee Act 1996, applications were made to and considered by an independent refugees commissioner, who made a binding recommendation to the Minister. Under the International Protection Act 2015, the procedure was brought in-house and recommendations were made to the Minister by international protection officers. These IPOs are officials of the International Protection Office, the immigration service of the Minister of State's Department. IPOs are not ordinary civil servants. It is quite technical. The Act provided in section 74, "An international protection officer shall be independent in the performance of his or her functions." To be clear, he or she shall be independent in the performance of his or her functions. The Supreme Court has held that the independent status of an IPO is a key feature, stating: An applicant has a right to be interviewed, heard and have decisions concerning them made by an independent decision-maker who is familiar with the relevant law. As well as under statute, these rights arise under the Procedures Directives ... The procedure must be transparent. Fairness and impartiality must be at the centre of the process. The reasons for any decision must be clear. EU law requires no less ... Failure to effectively implement the fundamental requirements laid down in the Directives and the case law will lead to a violation of EU law. That is from ASA v. Minister for Justice and Equality, 2022. The reference to the procedures directive is to the asylum procedures directive, which requires under Article 10.3(a) that international protection applications be "examined and decisions ... taken individually, objectively and impartially". While the procedures directive is repealed by EU Regulation 2024/1348, the new regulation also requires in Article 34.2 that applications be examined "objectively, impartially and on an individual basis". There does not seem to be any real change to this at EU level. The Supreme Court in the ASA judgment seems to have been prepared to hold that the Irish regime would have been in breach of EU law, including charter rights, if IPOs did not have statutory independence. The new Bill abolishes this independence. In fact, the Bill makes no reference at all to officials with regard to decisions on protection applications. The Bill vests the power to take such decisions on the determining authority, which is the Minister, under section 7. It seems pretty clear that the framers of the Bill expect the Carltona doctrine to apply. This is a rule of administrative law by virtue of which statutory functions conferred directly on the Minister can be performed by his or her civil servants. Such functions may be carried out by officials without any expressed statutory grant of power or administrative act of delegation. There will no longer be an examination or recommendation by an official acting independently, followed by a formal ministerial decision. All functions vested in the Minister will be exercised, in practice, by officials. The Bill does no longer appear to require that a single identifiable individual will consider the information and, ultimately, decide the application. The question is whether such dispersed decision-making responsibility in a hierarchical organisation is compatible with the EU requirement that decisions be taken objectively and impartially. If the Bill enables an application to be dealt with as a departmental file per se that is to be sent up the line with additions, etc., and then decided on by superiors, it could well fall foul of both EU law and the Supreme Court’s decision in Geraghty v. the Minister for Local Government 1976. An international protection application must be considered and decided, by whoever decides it, on a quasi-judicial basis. What is happening here prevents it from being treated as a departmental matter to be considered and scrutinised up the line in a departmental division, hence the requirement for the amendment, which I will press.
Sentiment score: 0.12
I thank the Minister of State for his response and I acknowledge the note he received from his officials with regard to the Attorney General. That is fine. We have put a lot of research into this amendment as a party because we believe there are serious legal questions around this, particularly in the context of hierarchical decision-making, the case law within Supreme Court decision-making and how all that fits in. While I know the Government will not accept this amendment, I have to press it because we fundamentally think there is a gap and issue in this regard. I encourage the Minister of State and his officials, in all honesty and decency, to relook at all of this before we conclude this Bill because I have received advice from a number of highly eminent people who are very concerned and concerted about this. They believe there is a real issue here. It can be solved but the way in which it is being dealt with in the legislation is not going to cut the mustard. I will press the amendment.
Sentiment score: 0.31
I have had to adapt to the issues relating to IPAS centres being in my constituency for a lot longer than most people inside here. Some did reference going back a while, but not everybody. I understand the spirit of this amendment. I accept there should be community analysis and I will outline the reason for that in a few minutes, but I am not sure practically how many centres would end up getting through this funnel. What I said in my Second Stage speech comes back again. The problem is we have to be careful as the political class, the highest political class in this country - we are the Legislature - that we do not create a situation whereby we facilitate legislation that gives people a pass for covert racism. We have to be very careful on that. I have said here before that I have been very disappointed by people in this House, on this side of the House and that side in particular and, dare I say it, a few scattered around the place also. When you are elected to this House, you have to have conviction and you have to stand up for what you believe in. We all know this system is horrendous. We all know the profiteering and that the private nature of how this has been done has been horrendous. We all know it should be a public-based system. We all know it needs significant investment. We all know the challenges. We all know it is imperfect; it will never be 100% perfect. We all know we need to do better, but that has not happened. In 2019, I was the only TD to attend, along with one councillor, when there was a public outcry - outcry is too strong a word but there was a public meeting - in Borrisokane. An outcry was beginning across several locations with regard to where IPAS centres were being located. This was in 2019, seven years ago. I was the only TD who turned up. The people of Borrisokane created history and I am so bloody proud to represent them. I have referred to this several times, but the Department of justice officials sat down, discussed and more or less did a deal. There were 90-odd people welcomed to the town, and they have grown in that town. They have contributed to that town and have done so much. I have a little story. Back then, there was a lot of fear in the area. Sorry, can the Chair interrupt the ushers? Excuse me, are you finished?
Sentiment score: -0.10
Thanks. This has never happened in my career here. There was a lot of fear in the community, and in the community at that time, there were people who were willing to block access to the Riverside apartments, because they did not want people coming. Swing on to 2024, when these people who had been moved into the apartments were being forced out of the apartments, again because it was run privately and there was a profit motive for moving them. The same people who blocked the apartments five years previously were willing to pull their machinery outside the apartments to keep them in. That was the social impact of those people moving to that area from various parts of the world. That was the impact they had on the school. That was the impact they had in the community. That was the impact they had on Borrisokane GAA. To see those young children running up the street for training on a Tuesday or Thursday evening, to see them in the Borrisokane gear, to see them winning awards and medals playing GAA and contributing in so many different ways was so heartening and refreshing. Then, you have a situation whereby we have a significant population coming into a town like Roscrea. In a town like Roscrea where there are social issues, a deprivation index you would look at and all of that, for a Government Department - the Department of justice - to take out the only hotel in the town, Racket Hall, the only place where people could have social gatherings, was absolutely stupid, idiotic and crazy. It was so bloody stupid that it is beyond comprehension how anyone - a Government or officials - could do that. There is that dichotomy between Borrisokane and Roscrea - both great places, fantastic places. Looking at what happened in Roscrea - talk about elevated levels of stupidity - to get representatives, particularly Fianna Fáil representatives, through an election they gave out €150,000 to do a feasibility study of an old hotel that has been closed a decade and does not have a hope in hell of being viable as a hotel into the future. A total of €150,000 of taxpayers' money was just flipped over the shoulder, gone, a waste of time. Tipperary County Council came out in the past week and said it is not buying it or doing anything with it. The Government is not doing anything with it. Many officials in several Departments have laughed and scoffed at this idea. I was previously a manager in Fáilte Ireland. It laughed at this. It is not viable. If it was not viable ten years ago, it is not viable for that purpose any more. It might be viable for something else because it is on a great street in the middle of Roscrea, but not for that. What sort of stupidity was that? When you come to the decision around community assessment, community assessment has to be done. However, you have to work with people in a way that is reasonable. You have to work with people in the manner in which it happened in Borrisokane. You do not do what I have outlined happening in Roscrea. You do not elevate the decision by trying to right an obvious wrong. The Government has now made the decision that it will not take out the final social gathering places and hotels. They are disembarking from hotels across the country, which I believe to be the right thing to do. It is absolutely the right thing to do. I put it to the Minister that when it comes to community engagement, there has to be a competency level within his Department that is increased way beyond what has ever happened in the past. It has been absolutely horrendous. The volume of the waste of money has also been horrendous. The model is broken. The Minister might be doing his best to change the model but the model has to be changed to deal with this, and that will only be through public investment. The Minister cannot do it any other way.
Sentiment score: -0.05