Are we discussing amendment No. 2? Amendment No. 1 has been ruled out of order.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I did not say that.
Sentiment score: 0.00
I thank colleagues for their contributions. I recognise this is a very considerable piece of legislation. As some other colleague as indicated, it is the most important reform of Ireland's asylum laws in the State's history. The criticism is that it is being rushed. I will inform Members about the history of this legislation and how we have got to today and take on board some of the criticisms that have been made. In April 2025, I published the general scheme of the International Protection Bill. After that, I requested detailed pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme, which the justice committee, of which Deputy Carthy is Chair, did. It called in a lot of witnesses. The Bill was given careful consideration by the members of the justice committee and, as a result, they produced a report that contained a series of recommendations. At the outset, it is important to say the work of pre-legislative scrutiny on the general scheme of the Bill was done thoroughly by the justice committee. That having been done, the Bill that is before us now was published, having got a stamped copy from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. We had three days of Second Stage debate on that Bill in the House earlier this month. In fact, on the third day, frankly, we ran out of speakers, not only from the Opposition but also from the Government, so no one can dispute but that we had an absolutely thorough and extensive debate on the legislation on Second Stage. We have now come for Committee Stage. Everyone who is interested in this legislation knows that Committee Stage of this Bill was going to be a lengthy process if it went to the justice committee and the justice committee was required to deal with it in its orthodox way. The justice committee has a huge amount of work on its agenda. I know that because I send it a lot of the work. Frankly, the justice committee having to deal with Committee Stage of this legislation in the orthodox manner in which it deals with these processes would have taken an inordinate period of time. That is merely my assessment in respect of it. That is why a decision was made to have Committee Stage taken on the floor of the House. We are going to have a very thorough consideration of amendments that have been put forward by colleagues on Committee Stage, which has been allotted eight hours today and which, as has been indicated, will go on to next Wednesday as well. No doubt there may be some disadvantages to Committee Stage of a Bill not being dealt with in the committee room, but there are also some advantages to it being dealt with on the floor of the Dáil. For instance, there are colleagues here who want to speak or can come in and address amendments. They have done so already and no doubt that will be done further throughout the day. I also have to be frank about something else. We can talk about the issue of sovereignty, and Deputy Carthy's first three amendments deal with the issue of sovereignty. This is Irish sovereignty in operation. The elected members of the Irish people are in the elected Chamber, debating legislation and determining what laws we want to introduce into this country for the purpose of reforming asylum laws. That is sovereignty. As Deputy Carthy will be aware, the Irish people voted on a series of occasions, and they have put it into Article 29 of the Constitution, that we would also permit ourselves to be part of the European Union and to be bound by regulations or directives that were part of the Union as well. A decision was made, and a vote was held in an exercise of Irish sovereignty and Irish democracy, in the previous Dáil that said we were going to participate in the European Union regulations and directives that were seeking to reform migration within the European Union. We voted on that in this House. That is democracy. That is the sovereignty of the Irish people being exercised. The reason the majority voted for that in this House is that there is a recognition that if we want to reform migration in the 21st century, it has to be done on a broad, multinational basis. We have seen what has happened in the United Kingdom when they decided they wanted to go on their own in seeking to respond to the issues of migration that concern the United Kingdom. Migration is a really powerful phenomenon of the 21st century. When the history of the 21st century is written, migration will be, I would have thought, one of the dominant themes of it. If we want to respond to migration for asylum purposes, my belief and the belief of the majority of the former Dáil and, I believe, this Dáil is that we have to do it on an EU basis. That brings me to the fact that we all know that within the European Union there has been an agreement among the member states that are participating in this that this process is going to commence on 12 June next. We can pretend that is not the case but it is the case. Ireland takes is obligations extremely seriously and we want to ensure that we are ready and that the legislation is in place by 12 June next because that is the commitment. That is the agreed date by which all members states that are participating in these regulations and directives have said they will be ready. If it is the case that we have to be ready by 12 June, obviously there are time pressures on the legislation. There is no point stating that there are not. However, the fact that there are time pressures on it does not mean we cannot have a thorough and detailed debate in respect of it. A total of 267 amendments have been put down for Committee Stage. I thank and commend colleagues, because the majority of them come from Opposition Deputies. I want to go through them and engage with them. That does not mean I have to support them, but I want to discuss and debate them. The sooner we start that process, the better. In fairness, the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, Deputy Quaide, was not here at the start of the debate on this question. Deputy Carthy's first amendment was ruled out of order. His second, third and fourth amendments also concerned the issue of sovereignty. They should be moved and I will respond to them. Alternatively, if this is a general discussion or debate about section 1, I have said what I wanted to say in response to my colleagues, but we will have time today and next week to discuss this in these Houses to ensure we get it right.
Sentiment score: 0.16
I do not rule amendments out of order.
Sentiment score: 0.00
I am okay.
Sentiment score: 0.23
I frequently get invitations, which I welcome, from the Deputy's justice committee. I turn up and I answer a series of questions on international protection accommodation, international protection processing times or the International Protection Office. I have done it before and I have no difficulty doing it again. What we cannot do is turn the Committee Stage of this important legislation into a procedure that is the same as happens in the justice committee when I appear to answer general questions. I can, however, give confirmation to the Deputy that the country and the Department will be ready to process the new system proposed under this legislation If the Deputy wants to look at what is being done and the improvements have been made, he should look no further than the International Protection Office, which last year processed over 20,000 applications, which was an extraordinary achievement. We need to speed up the appeals process as well. The Deputy will be aware there is a new second instance body being established under this. I agree with Deputy Gannon that we need to put in some procedure for what we are dealing with here. It seems to be that we are talking about section 1. We have not moved amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, in that grouping. I would have thought before we have a vote on section 1, we would have to deal with those three amendments.
Sentiment score: 0.16
Once the legislation is enacted I will then identify when I am going to sign commencement orders under it. That always applies in respect of legislation. What needs to happen now is the Deputy needs to move amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 if we want to-----
Sentiment score: 0.14
Are the Deputy's amendments not in respect-----
Sentiment score: 0.00
Okay.
Sentiment score: 0.23
I move amendment No. 5: In page 16, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following: " "absconding" means the action by which an applicant does not remain available to the competent administrative or judicial authorities of a Member State, such as by leaving the territory of the state without permission from the competent authorities, for reasons which are not beyond the applicant’s control;". This amendment is being introduced to provide clarity on the application of several sections of the Bill. It provides a definition of "absconding". The wording provides for the definition in the reception conditions directive. This directive is not directly applicable and, therefore, it is necessary to transpose its provisions into national law. Provisions in the Bill, in the directly applicable asylum and migration management regulation and in the asylum procedure regulation concern absconding. It is, therefore, necessary to clearly define what we mean by "absconding" for the purposes of the Bill.
Sentiment score: 0.13
Yes, that is correct.
Sentiment score: 0.40
It goes in there because it will be in this Act that we will have a definition.
Sentiment score: 0.00
Yes, it will be first definition of "absconding".
Sentiment score: 0.40
The purpose of it is to give an effect to a definition that is required under the reception conditions directive. There will be further amendments during the progress of the legislation through the Seanad in respect of the reception conditions but it is appropriate at this stage to have the definition of "absconding" within the legislation. Deputy Gannon asked whether it will apply if somebody travelled from the Republic to the North or back down. That is not covered by absconding.
Sentiment score: 0.11
Can the Deputy repeat that?
Sentiment score: 0.00
That is not an issue in terms of what is in the legislation. The number of deportation orders that were signed last year was in the region of over 4,000. Regarding people leaving the country who have deportation orders, I believe and the Department believes that if somebody is served with a deportation order in Ireland, it is very difficult to remain. They do not get any social protection payments. They cannot work within the orthodox economy. The belief in the Department is that the very significant number of people who receive deportation orders leave the country. Similarly, however, the Deputy will be aware that last year there were in the region of 2,000 enforced repatriations of people with deportation orders and people who went for voluntary return schemes. There are challenges with having a open border in Ireland. Deputy Tóbín mentioned earlier that we should have an exit system in Ireland. We cannot do that because we want to have an open border. If people travel from the Republic up to Northern Ireland, thereby leaving the State, there is no mechanism by which we can get a record of that. I suspect Sinn Féin does not want a mechanism in place that requires the State to stop people on the Border to identify their passing and coming. My assurance to Deputies is that when it comes to deportation orders that have been made, the belief is that the vast majority of them result in people leaving the jurisdiction.
Sentiment score: -0.03
I will briefly go back to the query raised by Deputy Gannon. I was probably too definitive in the response I gave to him in terms of the definition of "absconding". The definition states: "means the action by which an applicant does not remain available to the competent administrative or judicial authorities, such as by leaving the territory of the member state without permission from the competent authorities, for reasons which are not beyond the applicant’s control." The purpose of that provision is that the applicant remains available to the competent administrative or judicial authorities of the state. They are not allowed cross the Border, but if somebody did cross the Border, does that come within that definition? If they come back and make themselves available, that would not meet the definition of "absconding". I need to emphasise again that individuals who are not citizens of Ireland or the UK are not entitled to avail of the common travel area and, therefore, irrespective of whether they come within or breach the definition of "absconding", they are not permitted to cross the Border. The common travel area is there for the benefit of citizens of the UK and Ireland and it is not for the benefit of others. Deputy Carthy raised the issue of a bilateral agreement. I note with interest that he has tabled an amendment we will deal with later providing that there should be a requirement on the Minister to enter into a bilateral agreement with the United Kingdom. I will be interested in having a debate with him when we come to that amendment. He knows as well as I do that it is not possible to force me, as Minister, to enter into an agreement with another country. It is dependent upon getting the agreement of that other country, as he will be aware. If they are not prepared to enter into an agreement, there is difficulty on our part. However, since the last time I spoke on these issues, I had a very good remote meeting with the Home Secretary. I have expressed to her the issues of concern from the point of view of what I say is the abuse of the common travel area. She was also very frank with me in terms of issues that are affecting the UK. Of course it is a Labour government in the UK that has introduced measures that would be criticised by certain sections in this House. I indicated to her that there has to be joint operations between Ireland and the UK to ensure we do not have continuing breaches of the common travel area. That breach is putting a lot of pressure on our asylum system and on our international protection system. She is well aware of that. I also want to see that we can enter into arrangements with the UK where there is sharing of information. One of the negative consequences for the UK as a result of leaving the European Union is that it does not have access to the type of information that Ireland has, which is very useful in terms of processing applications for asylum. When it comes to entering an agreement with the UK, I will want to ensure that we have as close an arrangement as possible. I would like there to be an agreement but as the Deputy will appreciate, I cannot mandate another country to enter into an agreement with us. That is just not something within my power or control. However, I will seek to ensure that the ongoing abuse of the common travel area does not continue and I think the Home Secretary shares my concerns in respect of that.
Sentiment score: 0.25
There are difficulties in policing the travel of people from both sides of the Border. That is unquestionably the case. However, it is not correct to say there is no lawful way of policing that. The Border management unit does work there. An Garda Síochána is engaged and if people are not citizens of the UK or Ireland, they are not entitled to cross the Border. I have to keep emphasising that. Simply because that is difficult to police does not mean we should change that law. It is an important provision that is in place. It is for the benefit of Irish citizens and UK citizens. I will briefly respond to the Sinn Féin point. At some stage, Sinn Féin will meet itself coming around the corner. We fought for years to have an open border on the island. If the Deputies are asking what measures we can put in place to ensure people are not coming across the Border who are not entitled to it, does Sinn Féin want hard infrastructure put up to stop people crossing the Border? I suspect it does not. We need to realise there are real challenges here for us because we have an open land border with a non-EU country. I want to ensure we have operations in place with the United Kingdom to make sure we have good co-operation between ourselves and the UK. I suspect what Deputy Carthy would like to see was that we have a returns agreement with the UK. That is something I will certainly engage on with the Home Secretary. It is dependent on getting the UK's agreement. The UK entered into an agreement with France and is clearly not happy with that agreement, which was referred to as one in and one out. If there will be any agreement with Ireland from the point of view of the United Kingdom, one thing I can guarantee is if it will take back returning people from the Republic to the UK, we will have to take back a similar number of people. We need to recognise the political realities of this and the fact we have an open border on the island. We want an open border on the island but it is important for me as Minister to keep emphasising that free movement across that border is for the benefit of people who are entitled to use the common travel area.
Sentiment score: 0.18
I will deal with Deputy Farrelly's point first. "Not beyond the applicant's control" may include circumstances where an applicant is outside of the jurisdiction out of their own control and taken outside the jurisdiction. The purpose there is to try absolve them in respect of that. In reply to Deputy Ó Súilleabháin, I can do many things in this Bill. I cannot get Irish unity in the legislation.
Sentiment score: 0.13
PNR is used for serious criminal activity. It is not used for international protection. Even if that was in place, we would still need to have a mechanism on the Border to check people. We must be honest and realistic about this. The Garda can do some stops in terms of stopping buses or checking individuals but in terms of using something like PNR, people would have to be checked as they go North from South or come South from North. No one in this House wants that. It is a really difficult situation we find ourselves in. Everyone may be able to identify the obvious solution is Irish unity. We do not have that. I must deal with the reality of on the island of Ireland an open border with another non-EU country. It creates a huge challenge. If the UK was in the EU, many of these issues could be resolved in that the UK would be part of the returns regulation, which will hopefully be agreed, and there would be a mechanism for it to apply. One thing the EU has not been good at, which Deputy Tóibín mentioned earlier, is the operation of the Dublin III regulation. It does not work. At the first meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council I attended, the German Minister for interior affairs emphasised that the Dublin regulation does not work. We need a new procedure. That is the benefit here of what will be in this legislation and the subsequent returns regulation of which we hope to be part that will try to instill a greater and more efficient mechanism of stating that if somebody has applied for international protection in one jurisdiction already and they come to another, it is inadmissible and they have to go back to the first jurisdiction.
Sentiment score: 0.13
I thank the Deputies for their contributions. I am aware that this is an issue of genuine concern to people in this House. The first thing I want to say is that I should and I will bring forward an amendment to define "legal counselling". I cannot, however, accept Deputy Carthy's amendment. The reason I cannot is because, under the Deputy's amendment, he goes further than what is envisaged by legal counselling and says that it should include legal advice provided by a practising solicitor or barrister. What I am required to do, under the administrative procedure regulation, is to ensure that at first stage - what is now the IPO stage - legal counselling is provided to an applicant. I have a higher obligation when it comes to the second appeal stage. At that stage, I have to provide free legal assistance and representation in the appeal. The administrative procedure regulation that I am transposing in parts of the legislation here sets out a clear distinction between what is required at the first stage and what is required at the second stage. The obligation at the second stage is much higher and much more costly than that at the first stage. However, there is a definition of "legal counselling" contained within Article 16 of the administrative procedure regulation. In fairness to Deputy Kelly, he included that definition in amendment No. 9, which unfortunately for him was ruled out of order.
Sentiment score: 0.10
Article 16 states: For the purposes of the administrative procedure, free legal counselling shall include the provision of: (a) guidance on and an explanation of the administrative procedure including information on rights and obligations during that procedure; (b) assistance on the lodging of the application and guidance on: (i) the different procedures under which the application may be examined and the reasons for the application of those procedures; (ii) the rules related to the admissibility of an application; (iii) legal issues arising in the course of the procedure, including information on how to challenge a decision rejecting an application in accordance with Articles 67, 68 and 69. That is what we are required to do in terms of the provision of legal counselling. Deputy Carthy's amendment would expand the scope of legal counselling to include the provision of legal advice. Legal advice is a separate concept to legal counselling. That will be apparent when the definition of "legal counselling" is introduced later. The introduction of legal counselling is not intended to replace an applicant's ability to access legal advice either through private means or through the Legal Aid Board. Legal counselling will be an additional service intended to provide support for an applicant at the very early stage of an application. I am also concerned that Deputy Carthy's amendment would mandate that legal counselling be provided only by a practicing solicitor or barrister. This would place restrictions on who would be permitted to provide legal counselling, and this may in turn restrict the availability of the service. As I have said, I cannot and will not accept Deputy Carthy's amendment. My Department and the Legal Aid Board are currently analysing how to implement the provision of legal counselling to meet the requirements of the pact. My officials are also examining these matters in consultation with the OPC and the Attorney General. I will be bringing forward appropriate ministerial amendments relating to legal counselling.
Sentiment score: 0.19
I thank colleagues for their contributions. I assure all of them that we will be debating the definition of "legal counselling" that I bring forward. I intend to bring it forward in the Seanad. I would have preferred to bring it here on Report Stage. As I stated at the outset, there were time pressures in respect of this. I am being honest about that. I am just reflecting on the matter. The definition of "legal counselling" will reflect the definition in the asylum procedures regulation, APR. It will also take into account requirements set out in the asylum and migration management regulation, AMMR, and the asylum border procedure. My intention is that legal counselling will be provided through the Legal Aid Board. The likelihood is that it will be provided through paralegals hired by the Legal Aid Board. That is my intention at present. It will be provided predominantly on an individual basis. It is not for me to dictate to the Legal Aid Board how it should manage its provision of legal counselling. It will be a matter for the Legal Aid Board. I am not going to specify in legislation how they should do it. It is not my intention or the intention of the legislation, and I do not envisage it happening, that AI or bots will be used, to answer Deputy Gannon's question. People may criticise me for this, but we also have to recognise that a limited amount of money is available to be given to the Legal Aid Board each year. In fairness, last year in the budget, I managed to get a sum in the region of €73 million for the Legal Aid Board. That included an increase of €8 million to take into account the extra obligations that are going to be placed on the Legal Aid Board as a result of the requirements under the new International Protection Bill. Further money has been required, therefore, but I also need to ensure that the pot of money that is available is not all used up for international protection. People may criticise me for saying that but I have to ensure it is not all used up for that. There are also significant pressures on the Legal Aid Board with the legitimate applications coming for legal advice and assistance from those seeking international protection. In 2024, some 28,000 applications were made to the Legal Aid Board. Of them, 11,600 or so were in respect of international protection. I have to be realistic.
Sentiment score: 0.16
I want to ensure that the legal counselling that is being provided will be very adequate. I believe it will be adequate. It will reflect the definitions that are contained within Deputy Kelly's amendment, as is set out in the administrative procedure regulation. That is the information I have for Deputy Kelly. On Deputy Carthy's amendment specifically, I cannot accept it. It places too great an obligation on me to ensure that it is legal advice by practitioners being provided. I note the point that Deputy Carthy's amendment allows counselling to be provided by "a person employed by the Legal Aid Board who is authorised to provide legal advice or representation". I want to be more specific in what I am doing. I do not want to find myself being tied in by the definition that is set out there.
Sentiment score: 0.19
I will answer Deputy Ward while I have it in mind. That will be a matter for the Legal Aid Board. I will not specify in legislation that the board in providing legal counselling must do it individually. That would be an excessive reach in terms of a statute. It will be a matter for the Legal Aid Board to determine. Deputy Gannon referred to the hearings yesterday before the justice committee. I did not hear them but I read about them. He quoted a section from the Free Legal Advice Centres. I have to ensure what I do in this legislation will not completely overburden the Legal Aid Board with the requirements placed on it. There is a balancing act here. People say we need to devote more money to civil legal aid. I agree with that but I have a budget that I have to work with. I have to ensure the definition of "legal counselling" that I put into this legislation does not result in those resources being devoted predominately to international protection. Deputy Kelly asked about the definition. I said earlier – I was very frank with the House about what I am proposing - that the APR definition will provide the basis of the definition of "legal counselling". As I said, the Deputy included it himself.
Sentiment score: 0.22
It is very clear from that definition in Article 16 what legal counselling is. It is distinct from legal advice. We need to recognise that when people come in seeking international protection, they do not need the expertise of a very well-qualified senior solicitor. They need somebody who is expert in the area of applications for international protection. They need to be informed about the procedure and the importance of the narrative that is provided to the individual who is hearing their application at first instance. Those are the crucial factors in determining whether an individual is entitled to be granted asylum. I know it is set out as a very legal and litigious process when you look at the detail of the legislation but, ultimately, the most important aspect for any applicant for international protection is to be able to set out coherently and as comfortably as possible the basis upon which they say that they are entitled to international protection. That requires legal counselling from individuals who are expert in that type of work and process. That will be much more effective. The intention in the amendments, when they come forward, will be that they will be governed by the Legal Aid Board. I apologise but I do not have definitions here. I have provided as much coherence as possible. We have had a good debate on legal counselling. Individuals need to be aware that if the definition of "legal counselling" they want to include in the Bill is legal counselling that includes advice from a solicitor or barrister, that will place excessive burdens on the legal aid system in this country. It is not feasible. It is always open to an individual seeking international protection at first instance to apply to the Legal Aid Board, and that will continue. In 2024, there were 11,689 applications to the board in respect of international protection. That process will continue. To deal with the issue raised by Deputy Ward, the Legal Aid Board finds itself with what he referred to as a Hobson’s choice. It finds itself in the position where it has to choose who to grant legal aid to. It is a difficult choice. I have to be careful with the legislation I am bringing forward in ensuring it does not overburden the Legal Aid Board. As I said, legal counselling will be provided. It will be based on the definition in Article 16 of the asylum procedures regulation, APR. It will not necessarily have to be legal advice. However, it will not preclude an applicant from applying for legal advice from the Legal Aid Board.
Sentiment score: 0.21
No.
Sentiment score: -0.30
I want to deal with the issue of detention of unaccompanied minors which has been presented in very emotive way in the House. I need to be clear about the circumstances when it will apply because to listen in to this debate you would think the detention of unaccompanied minors could happen in a haphazard or capricious way but that is not the case. Let us look at what is provided for in section 24. It is contained in section 24(11) and I will read it out because it is extremely important. It states: A member of An Garda Síochána or an immigration officer may, in exceptional circumstances and as a measure of last resort, arrest without warrant and detain, in accordance with subsection (13), a minor who is in the custody of an applicant (whether the applicant is a parent or a person acting in loco parentis or any other person) where the applicant is detained under this section and where— (a) it is necessary for the purposes of determining or verifying the identity or nationality of the minor, (b) the member or officer is satisfied that less coercive alternative measures cannot be applied effectively, and (c) [Something that is never mentioned here] it is assessed by the member or officer that the detention is in the minor’s best interests. As such, there cannot be any detention unless there is a determination the detention is in the minor's best interest. Subsection 24(12) which follows provides similarly that: A member of An Garda Síochána or an immigration officer may, in exceptional circumstances and as a measure of last resort, arrest without warrant an applicant who is an unaccompanied minor and detain the unaccompanied minor in accordance with subsection (13) ... Again, the same three conditions must be met and I emphasise the third condition, which is that "it is assessed by the member or officer that the detention is in the minor’s best interests" and safeguards the unaccompanied minor. We need to recognise the only time this will happen is when there is an assessment it is in the best interests of the minor. That is something that has not been emphasised here and it is an extremely important proviso. Also, as Deputy Gannon indicated earlier, section 24(13) states any such detention will be: (a) for the shortest possible period of time, and in any event for a maximum period of 12 hours, and [to answer Deputy O'Hara's question] (b) in a place prescribed by the Minister for that purpose (which shall not be a prison, children detention school or Garda Síochána station), under warrant of the arresting member or officer and in the custody of the person for the time being in charge of the place, or in a vehicle for the purposes of bringing the minor to that place. We need to be honest about the provision. People can very emotively say the Minister and the Government are bringing in rules for the detention of minors but Members should please emphasise as well that it can only happen in circumstances where it is believed that short detention of no longer than 12 hours is in the best interests of the minor. I will now deal with Deputy Kelly's amendment No. 8. Again, as has been indicated, this tries to put a definition into the section we are still dealing with that contains the definitions. The Deputy’s amendment refers to recital 33 and Article 10(2) of the reception conditions directive. As the Deputy and others will know, that is an extremely important directive that needs to be transposed into Irish law. The way we did that previously was to bring it in through a statutory instrument, which was secondary legislation the then Minister signed setting out that these are the reception conditions to which an applicant is entitled. The entitlements in terms of accommodation and work were set out. It is preferable that the reception conditions directive be transposed within the primary legislation rather than doing what was done previously by just signing a statutory instrument, which will not have the same level of appraisal or consideration by the Houses. I intend to bring forward amendments that will deal with the reception conditions directive. They will come back and we will be able to examine them. The legal instrument transposing them will very much reflect what is in the reception conditions directive, of which everyone is aware and which is readily available for people to inspect.
Sentiment score: 0.17
I thank colleagues for their contributions. The determination of whether something is in the best interests of a child is carried out every day of the week by judges. It is also a determination that is carried out in advance by Tusla or other agencies which find themselves having to go to court. There are unquestionably occasions where people have to determine what is in the best interests of the child. We are aware that this provision only applies in respect of the screening process. It is a very short period of time. There will unquestionably be circumstances, as in the first section, where a child has arrived into Ireland with an adult who is another applicant and that applicant is not available. There are circumstances in such cases where it would be in the best interests of the child to be detained for a short period of time.
Sentiment score: 0.42
We need to recognise that when it comes to the drafting of legislation, we do not set out the circumstances in which the Oireachtas believes something would be in the best interests of the child. We have to allow a certain level of discretion. Of course all of this will be subject to very careful judicial intervention. That is why the drafting of the Bill is so important. We need to recognise that the amendment we are dealing with relates to the definition section of the Bill. When we come to section 24, there are further amendments in respect of the express provision regarding the limited period of detention that is permissible. I take on board what Deputy Kelly has said about the reception conditions directive. It is an improvement that the directive will be transposed through primary legislation for debate here, as opposed to by way of statutory instrument, which was an option.
Sentiment score: 0.27
I thank Deputies Gannon and Kelly for the amendment. I will discuss all of the amendments grouped together. Amendment No. 10 tabled by Deputies Gannon and Kelly can be divided into two parts. The Deputies want to set out in the legislation that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all matters affecting a person who is minor. I have no difficulty with this provision being put into the legislation but I need to inform Members that it is in the Bill already. Section 29(1) contains a provision dealing with a guarantee for minors. Section 29(1) states: "The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in the carrying out of procedures in respect of a minor under this Part." Colleagues may revert and state this is limited to that Part but I would look at it because I certainly want it to be the case that throughout the legislation the best interests of the child should be the primary consideration. In the next part of the proposed amendment from Deputies Gannon and Kelly they have decided they think it would be preferable to define what is the best interests of the child or how the best interests of the child should be determined, and they do so in six paragraphs setting out the views of the child, the age of the child, safety and developmental needs, preservation of family relationships, particular vulnerabilities and any other particular circumstances. There is a genuine debate to be had as to whether when we put a protection in legislation, it is benefited by seeking to provide a definition of that general protection. The term "the best interests of the child" is in Article 42A of our Constitution. The courts are required to ensure that decisions made are in the best interests of the child. I will consider it. I will table amendments in respect of this matter. I cannot accept the amendments as they are at present, particularly amendments Nos. 10, 17, 20 and 206. Section 15 clearly provides for the safeguards required by the Eurodac regulation on the collection of biometric data from children. I do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 134 135, 154 and 192. Article 23 of the asylum and migration management regulation and Article 22 of the asylum procedures regulation set out that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration for the state and the competent authorities of the state with respect to all procedures provided for in those regulations. This is a legally binding obligation on the state. As such, it may not be necessary to include these amendments in the Bill. I will give careful consideration to what is in these amendments and I may bring forward further amendments later to give effect to them. It is important, however, to note that the legislation already provides that the best interests of the child be the primary consideration. In respect of what Deputy Coppinger has raised, what makes immigration a really difficult thing to deal with, particularly if you are the person making the decisions - and everyone in here makes decisions when it comes to legislation - is that you are dealing with people's lives. Decisions that are made have consequential impacts on individuals. What I have tried to do - and feel free to criticise me, which I know the Deputy will - is that I have tried to get away from a situation whereby we have an arbitrary system. I have tried to have a rules-based system. Deputy Gibney criticised me and asked where the compassion is in this. If I go down the route of moving away from a rules-based system and decide I will deal with individual requests on an individual basis, we will have a system that is very unfair in the generality of how it is applied. It will become arbitrary and nobody will know what the outcome will be. Those who can get a well-connected campaign up and running will know they are in a better position or people may think if they can mention a case in the Dáil, they will have a better chance of receiving a positive result. I do not know the situation in terms of the individuals Deputy Coppinger referred to. I do not know whether they have been refused status. I am not asking the Deputy to deal with the details of it now; if she wants to she can mention them to me. I do not know whether they have been refused status and been served with a deportation order. Alternatively, I do not know whether they have been granted status. One thing the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and I cannot do if people have been granted status is to get into the accommodation business of providing an ever-growing amount of accommodation for people who are not international protection applicants but who are beneficiaries of international protection. Deputy Coppinger may not want to assert it but she will know this something that is just not feasible. There has to be movement through the system of individuals who come in and apply for international protection. We have an obligation under the material conditions directive to provide them with that accommodation during their application process. Once that process comes to an end, we no longer have an obligation. It is not tenable for the State to provide endless accommodation after decisions have been made. It would be a recipe for quite significant trouble were that to arise. The Deputy asked me to intervene. I could fudge this with her and say something else but I will not intervene. I have to be consistent across the board. If somebody comes up to me here and asks me to intervene, I will be honest and say I will not do so. We have to have a rules-based system. Otherwise if I intervene on the basis of TDs contacting me and asking me to intervene, the system will become very unfair to the individuals concerned.
Sentiment score: 0.15
I am going to consider it.
Sentiment score: 0.00
I was saying that we do not set out in the Constitution what the best interests of the child are.
Sentiment score: 0.74
I assure Deputy Gannon that I am not saying I do not see any merit in the amendment. I do see merit in it. I have indicated to the Deputy that I am going to consider it and that I will most probably bring forward amendments in respect of it to emphasise the best interests of the child. I do not think it is without merit. The point I was making about the reference in the Constitution to "the best interests of the child" is that we can decide whether we want to define what the best interests of the child are - Deputies Gannon and Kelly have put it in their amendment - or we can leave it vague. By leaving it vague, it is probably broader. One of the downsides of specifying what a term means in legislation is that when somebody looks at it, they will very much limit the meaning of "the best interests of the child" to the six paragraphs that have been set out. Sometimes it can have broader application if we do not try to specify it and tie it down in six areas.
Sentiment score: 0.31