Can I speak to the section?

Sentiment score: 0.00

We have a long track ahead of us. I want to put on the record that this is not how we should be dealing with this legislation. The Minister has described it as the most substantial piece of immigration legislation this House has dealt with in many years. The truth is that it is being rushed. It is being rushed not because it is emergency legislation. If it is an emergency, it is no more an emergency today than it was three or four years ago. It is because the Minister and the parties of Government have locked us into an EU migration and asylum pact and they are desperately now chasing to try to get legislation in place prior to the deadline for that pact, which is the summer, even though the Minister knows there is absolutely not a chance in hell within this year at all, at any stage in this year, that the Government is going to be in a position to adhere to the stipulations contained within either the asylum and migration pact or this Act. Therefore, it is deeply regrettable that we are not having detailed scrutiny within the committee. This is not the forum to have proper conducive discussions around the merits or otherwise of debates. We should be doing it in the committee. The Joint Committee on Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, which I chair as the Minister knows, agreed unanimously that we would make ourselves available at any time and for as long as it would take to actually go through each amendment in detail with the Minister. Instead, unfortunately, we are presented with legislation that is absolutely rushed. Literally within the last number of minutes, we adopted Second Stage of the legislation and now we are moving on to Committee Stage. The irony of it was that the Second Stage debate was still ongoing when the deadline for amendments to this legislation was reached. That is no way to carry out the legislative business of the House. It makes a mockery of the Second Stage process and of any semblance of democratic discussion taking place here. What is really frustrating from my point of view is that we are in a situation where we are being rushed and we have very limited time to scrutinise the amendments brought forward by the Minister and by other parties. It was only within the past hour or so that we got details of which amendments have been ruled in or out of order. I have great sympathy for the staff in the Bills Office who were run to such a short deadline.

Sentiment score: 0.00

We have no way of scrutinising a number of the amendments, particularly the amendment I tabled on section 1, which we are discussing now. I would have thought that amendment No. 1 was eminently sensible. I would have hoped that the Minister was willing to put forward a stipulation that would have stated the Bill would not come into operation until he can assure the House that the Department has the capacity to bring it into operation, and that administrative, operational and staffing arrangements have been put in place to enable the State to comply with the requirements of the Bill. This is eminently sensible. In other words, it should be stated that the Minister will not enact legislation until he can be assured that he can implement it and that the resources allocated for the purpose of implementing the Bill, including staffing levels, accommodation capacity, interpretation services, legal assistance provision and IT systems, are in place. This is eminently sensible. The Minister is signing us up to obligations which he cannot assure the House will be adhered to. The Minister should ensure measures are taken to ensure that all relevant bodies, agencies and contractors are capable of performing the functions assigned to them under the Act. This should be an assurance the Minister would be happy to include in legislation. He should state that he would not enact it until he can be assured of this. I am sure other members of the committee will tell the Minister that we had a discussion on the civil legal aid system. It is already at bursting point but it will have more obligations and more responsibilities under the Act. However, the Minister has provided no clarification as to when or if he will implement the recommendations of the civil legal aid review. There is a very good chance that civil legal aid will burst as a result of the additional responsibilities under the Act. This is before we start talking about Tusla. There has been a lot of discussion in the House in respect of the capacity of Tusla to do the very important roles the House has already conferred on it. Additional responsibilities will be added to Tusla in the Bill. I have to say I have no confidence whatsoever that Tusla has the resources and capability to be able to deal with the additional responsibilities. Amendment No. 1 also called for an implementation timeframe to confirm the Minister is satisfied that the State is in a position to meet all requirements and obligations. Again, this is absolutely and eminently sensible. The difficulty is that a very short period of time ago I was told that amendment No. 1 is in conflict with the principle of the Bill. How is it in conflict with the principle of the Bill? It basically states the Minister will outline how he will implement the Bill before he enacts it. I would have thought this was a completely and eminently sensible proposition. As I have said, because the Bills Office was under so much pressure and working to incredibly tight timeframes, which is no way to treat the staff of the House, we do not have any opportunity to question the logic as to why amendment No. 1 was ruled out of order. If it was stated that it was because it was in conflict with the approach the Minister has taken to the Bill, I would say that was absolutely right. The Minister has taken a position of moving full steam ahead with the enactment of the Bill due to the fact that the Government has signed up to the EU asylum and migration pact with no idea of how it will be dealt with. We do not need the EU asylum and migration pact to accelerate processing times; we need a competent Government. The Government tells us it is making progress. I happened to see a report that the Department has prepared for a committee of the House, which tells us that in respect of processing times the overall median processing times for first-instance decisions went down from 16 months in 2024 to 14 months in 2025. Bravo. These are the figures that the Ministers have been telling everybody about regarding the progress they have made in reducing processing times. What they often forget to say is that the median times for all of 2024 for appeals determined by IPAT was ten months and the median time in 2025 for international protection appeals was 12.5 months. The two months saved in the median time in terms of the average processing time in the first instance has been more than outweighed by the 2.5 months added to the appeals stage. What does this mean in reality? It means that the processing time from beginning to end is taking longer now than it was when the Minister came into office. For all the big spin and publicity about the progress that has been made, the truth of the matter is that we still do not have it right. We do not need the EU asylum and migration pact to get it right. We can introduce legislation in the House without any pact and without any of this rushed legislation or this debacle we have here today, and with proper scrutiny of the legislation. Likewise, in terms of the enforcement of decisions, the Minister will tell us about the great work of monitoring and ensuring that deportation orders are met. More people were given deportation orders in 2025, whom we do not know whether they have left the State, than in 2024. We do not need an EU asylum and migration pact to gather this information; we need a Department and a Minister on top of their jobs. We do not need the EU asylum and migration pact to deal with the huge expenditure of public money, which I categorise in very large instances as wastage of public money. The truth is that the Department is spending more taxpayers' money every year - last year it was estimated at €1.2 billion - at a time when many of the people in IPAS accommodation are in what I would describe as disgraceful conditions. Who is benefiting? It is the operators who are getting huge sums of money with no transparency whatsoever. This transparency could and should be provided but the Department will not do so, in terms of beneficial ownership and the details of contracts supplied. Then there is the aspect of commercial sensitivity, as if there is competition with the Department. There is no competition. There is no reason there should not be increased scrutiny and transparency. The annual figure of €1.2 billion is €3.2 million or thereabouts every single day if my maths are right. This is spent on an aspect of public expenditure for which the public has no oversight whatsoever in real terms. The only information provided is how much certain companies get in totality but there is no detail on what they are providing, how many beds they provide per day, the locations, who the beneficial owners are, or anything that I would describe as being of basic common interest to be informed of. I do not know if the Minister can indicate whether he will table a similar amendment to amendment No. 1 to ensure there is this accountability. The proposal is that a mechanism be inserted in subsection 2 whereby the Act will not come into operation until he can provide the guarantees we have sought on the operational and staffing arrangements, the resources for the purpose of implementing the Bill, and the measures in place to ensure that all relevant bodies and contractors are capable. If he cannot give an assurance to the House that he will put in place these basic protections, I do not know how we can adopt section 1 and I will certainly call a vote on it.

Sentiment score: 0.12

We are dealing with section 1 and it is important. It should not be in some respects, because section 1 includes in many respects standard clauses that state that the Act shall come into operation on the day or days as the Minister may appoint by order, and deals with the power to introduce sanctions. It is important in respect of this legislation because I have serious concerns about us passing a piece of legislation that I do not believe the Department or the agencies tasked with responsibilities have the ability to enact. That is a genuine concern that needs to be teased out on Committee Stage. I did speak to the amendment that was ruled out of order. I would love to get clarification as to precisely why, as I was told, it conflicts with the principle of the Bill.

Sentiment score: 0.26

I am not suggesting the Minister does but the difficult is that the Bills Office was under so much time pressure that by the time it informed me of that, there was not any time for me to ask any questions or seek any clarifications, as should have been the case. I mentioned on Second Stage that I fully believe this Bill will not be enacted a full year before provisions of it are challenged legally on the basis that there will be problems with the legislation, and one of the reasons there will be problems is that we have not had proper deliberation. The second reason these Houses have cause to be concerned is that this Bill is locked in with the EU migration and asylum pact. There could well be infringement proceedings against this State in respect of the failure to adhere to the enactment of the legislation and that is why I have asked the Minister a number of questions. I would appreciate if the Minister could come back and outline the preparatory work that is in place to deal with the issues. In terms of accommodation capacity, what is the plan to ensure that by the time this Bill is enacted, there will be accommodation to deal with any obligations that are contained within the pact? Will there be a move away from the profiteering model that has been the hallmark of this system and ensured that a very small number of companies and operators have made fortunes in very short periods without accountability and transparency? Is the Minister proposing to bring forward additional transparency for private operator contracts? It would be appropriate at this point if the Minister could outline to us the capacity of both the International Protection Office, IPO, and the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, IPAT, the current levels of staffing within both, the staffing gaps within both, the necessary increase in staffing within both that will be required to implement the Bill on enactment, and how the Minister will make up the difference in time for the enactment. Has the Minister or his Department carried out any analysis of potential infringement proceedings that could be taken, if his Department is not in a position to do what it is making itself legally obliged to do? To respond to some of the points the Minister has made regarding the approach, the Minister has a responsibility, as do the Government and the Department, but these Houses have responsibilities as well. One of the difficulties I have with the approach that has been taken is that we are being denied the full ability to play our constitutional role in scrutinising legislation. The Minister mentioned the general scheme brought before the justice committee. Yes, there were good deliberations, good debate and cross-party collaboration from all members of the committee, but the Minister did not say that when the general scheme was brought forward, there was huge gaps in it. There were parts of the general scheme that the Minister's departmental officials told us they would deal with on Second Stage, Committee Stage or Report Stage. Many of the witnesses who came before the committee said they had a real problem because they did not know what was going to be in the legislation in order to contribute to the pre-legislative scrutiny. The Bill was produced but within a week, we had to deal with Second Stage, and before Second Stage was completed, we had to submit amendments. Amendments are a crucial part of bringing Bills forward. The Minister is coming at this with all the resources of a Government Department behind him, and by his own admission, he said this is an all-of-government priority. With all the resources he had, however, the Minister was not able to have the general scheme completed by the time it was published and was not able to have all his amendments and proposals ready before Second Stage. He has had to bring forward amendments on Committee Stage, yet the Opposition is expected to go through the Bill in detail, engage with those who need to be engaged with, submit amendments, analyse the Government's amendments and analyse other Opposition amendments within a timeframe that is simply impossible. To remind people, we are talking about a Minister with the resources of an entire Department. Each TD has one member of staff who can assist them in dealing with this. That is a huge ask, and I say this in deference to other parties because within my party, we have the numbers to ensure I deal with justice, home affairs and migration on their own. TDs in smaller parties are expected to go through this legislation and process while also dealing with three or four other portfolios. The approach the Minister has taken has not allowed the Opposition to play its constitutional role in scrutinising this legislation. That is a huge problem. As the Minister said and as has been outlined a number of times, this is one of the most substantive pieces of legislation. There could be financial consequences way beyond the outworkings of the legislation itself. Therefore, it is unacceptable that the committee has not been allowed to carry out its work by having a deliberation on the questions I have put to the Minister in an over-and-back format on Committee Stage. I put these questions to the Minister and I hope he will take the opportunity to give this House assurance in respect of the preparatory work and in respect of his own Department, the IPO, IPAT, Tusla, the civil Legal Aid Board and the overall process and accommodation. If he cannot provide assurances that his Department is ready for everything it has enacted, I cannot support section 1, which would give the Minister the authority to enact this legislation at a time of his choosing, potentially opening up this State to huge costs from legal challenges and infringement proceedings at an EU level.

Sentiment score: 0.10

Is the Minister not answering the questions I put in respect of the resources he will put in place to implement the legislation? It is a fundamental question. I do not know how we can even proceed without those questions being answered.

Sentiment score: 0.16

Just to say-----

Sentiment score: 0.00

On section 1, this is fundamental to the discussion that we had. I do not think there is any suggestion that Members should be rushed to dealing with a section as important as dealing with individual amendments. The legislation will give the Minister the power to appoint by order the day on which this will come into place in terms of schedules. Can the Minister give this House any indication as to when he expects to make those orders?

Sentiment score: 0.05

They are to section 2. We are dealing with section 1.

Sentiment score: 0.00

No.

Sentiment score: -0.30

I move amendment No. 2: In page 16, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “Sovereignty of the State in Matters of International Protection 2. (1) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting the sovereign authority of the State, exercised through the Oireachtas, to determine policy in respect of immigration and international protection. (2) No provision of this Act shall be interpreted as delegating such authority to any external body or institution without the express approval of the Oireachtas by primary legislation.”.

Sentiment score: -0.07

Earlier, the Minister spoke about the democratic process and how the EU migration and asylum pact was democratically voted through by the Houses of the Oireachtas and, therefore, there should be no question of it or the implications for Irish sovereignty. To be clear, when I say, “Irish sovereignty”, I mean the ability of the Irish Government to enact legislation relating to immigration, particularly international protection, in this State. I make no apologies for Sinn Féin’s position that we oppose, and will continue to oppose, moves that undermine Irish sovereignty unnecessarily. I am a former Member of the European Parliament. I believe in the concept of the European Union where member states work together to deliver things that can only be delivered by working collaboratively. In respect of what that means in the context of the EU asylum and migration pact and how Sinn Féin approached this, we looked at each of the regulations and directives within the pact in turn and deliberated as to whether it was in Ireland’s best interest to sign up to the pact. There were a number of aspects with which Sinn Féin agreed we need to sign up to on the basis that the only way they are workable is through working together. Of course, we need to have an EU framework to deal with returns regulations and the sharing of information between member states. We do not need an EU framework to ensure that we have an efficient processing system, however. In fact, it is irrelevant. When it comes to having a competent government that can speed up our processing times, the only difference signing up to the EU migration and asylum pact makes is that we will be potentially liable for fines if we do not achieve it. Not only do the Irish people get the benefit of having an incompetent Government, but taxpayers will also be fined for the luxury of having that incompetent Government. We do not need the pact to ensure that when decisions are made, they are enforced or at least monitored nor do we need the pact to move away from the blatant profiteering that has become the hallmark of this system. For all of those things, we need a competent government. Therefore, it does not make any sense for us to sign up to an EU framework, particularly when we are doing it from a starting point where we have a dysfunctional system and have not seen advances in processing. I accept that first-instance processing and median times have reduced, but the appeals have increased more than the first instances have reduced. Therefore, there is nothing. As I mentioned earlier, we dealt with pre-legislative scrutiny. Stakeholders, Department officials, legal and migration experts and people from all different perspectives were before the committee, including people with a humanitarian perspective. No one expressed confidence in the ability of the Government or State to be in a position by June of this year to fundamentally transform the system and, therefore, it is crucially important that we deal with those areas we can deal with on a State-wide level. The Minister spoke about how the Irish people amended the Constitution to allow us to sign up to measures at an EU level, that is, to hand over sovereignty. They did so on the very clear premise that it would be on matters we must deal with on an EU basis. In fact, throughout every debate, particularly in debates relating to both the Nice and Lisbon treaties, the Irish people had concerns about what they could mean for the ability of governments to hand over powers that could never be returned. One of the ways in which their concerns were assuaged - not the concerns of all Irish people, and certainly not mine - was through Protocol 21 of the Lisbon treaty. That gave Ireland something very important, namely, an opt-out of anything related to justice, security or freedom measures, which includes measures such as the EU asylum and migration pact. The Government, therefore, did not need to sign up to all aspects of it. As I have outlined, it is not in our best interests to do so. Why then did the Government sign up to the EU asylum and migration pact, because it does not make any sense? Why would it tie the hands of not only the Government of the day but also all future governments to show flexibility? It did so because it wanted to show that it is doing something on the issue of migration. It had become a political issue and the Government wanted to be able to say that it was getting its act together and signing up to an EU pact, despite, as I mentioned earlier, not having any plan to actually deal with that. This means that, into the future, we will be operating within an EU framework. There is a lack of scrutiny in respect of this legislation. We are dealing with rushed timelines and a situation where we are going to have legislation enacted by June, although the processes and plan to deal with that will come at some undefined point in the future. Elected representatives from here on will essentially be shut out. Democracy is not just about the ability of governments to make decisions. Rather, democracy fundamentally is about the ability of the people to kick out governments and elect a different government to make different decisions, if that is what the Irish people want. That is what is fundamentally being breached here. I have three amendments in this regard. I have moved amendment No. 2. It expressly states it should be the will of these Houses to ensure no external body or institution would have the ability to make laws in respect of migration or international protection without the express approval of the Oireachtas and primary legislation. Amendment No. 3 asks for the Minister, on an annual basis, to lay before the Oireachtas a report dealing with: (a) the extent to which the State’s international protection system remains under domestic control; (b) obligations arising from EU or international agreements during the preceding year; and (c) steps taken to ensure that Irish sovereignty and democratic oversight are maintained. It states the report should be referred to the Oireachtas joint committee on justice. I hope the Minister will indicate support for that provision, if he does not support the first. It is important there be an outline. Amendment No. 4 is crucially important because it goes to the crux of the second reason signing up to the EU asylum and migration pact was an absolute mistake. The pact, naturally enough for a European Union document, makes no provision for and gives no consideration whatsoever to the common travel area and how changes that happen in Britain might affect changes here. The amendment asks the Government to "prepare and publish an assessment of the potential and actual impacts on the common travel area arising from the operation of this Act." It states that the assessment should include: (a) analysis of any implications for the movement of persons between the State and Great Britain, (b) consideration of the effect of international protection procedures on CTA integrity and cooperation, (c) evaluation of any risks of displacement or diversion effects within the CTA, and (d) measures proposed to mitigate identified impacts. It also states: (3) The Government shall consult with relevant Departments, agencies, and stakeholders, including those with responsibility for immigration control, border management, and CTA co-ordination. It states that assessment should be laid before this House on an annual basis. That is crucially important because various Ministers at different times - I have lost count of the different figures - have said that 80%, 85%, 90% and 90%-plus of the number of people seeking international protection in this State arrive via the common travel area. I presume everyone agrees that over 50% are coming from within the common travel area, and it is probably higher. If we are then locking ourselves into an EU framework that does not take cognisance of that, it requires an explanation that no Minister has given. If it is the case that those numbers are, in fact, the reality, and if we were serious and if the Government was serious about dealing with the dysfunction in the international protection system, the priority would be having a bilateral agreement with the British Government in respect of ensuring that we have a returns policy and the sharing of information and all of that. We have an informal agreement but there have been no moves and there is no sense of urgency or sign that the Government is dealing with this issue as a serious matter. I hope and expect that amendment No. 4 will be supported by the Government. This amendment is required because the Government signed us up without any consideration. We have seen it time and time again. The Government is now rendering Protocol 21 meaningless. It is opting into virtually every EU measure that is coming forward. It is all a facade. It is to show that the Government is doing something when in reality all it is doing is signing up to measures it cannot control. It is not taking cognisance of the position. The Government carried out a review of Protocol 21. It acknowledged explicitly that opt-outs exist and are maintained because of the common travel area. Yet, the opt-outs are always and repeatedly being disregarded. The amendment requires the Government to examine and publish how the Bill will affect the common travel area and mandates analysis. I will say the following, and I think this is an appropriate time to talk about the issue. Lots of people have raised concerns about immigration into this State. Some come from a genuine place of concern for those people who are coming here and for the capacity of the system to deal with the numbers who are coming. Others come from a nastier and racist position. Let us call a spade a spade. If people were serious about tackling those concerns, the single greatest thing we could do to ensure we have a migration system that works effectively would be to get rid of the Border on this island and ensure we deal with the issue on an all-Ireland and united-Ireland basis. The people who have concerns and believe that these issues have not been managed should be the loudest and most vocal united Ireland proponents among us. It is the only way in which to deal with this. I look forward to hearing the response of the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, to these amendments. It will speak volumes to the seriousness of what the Minister has said about his respect for these Houses and the ability of these Houses to act in the best interests of the Irish people, going forward, and being able to be flexible in terms of making changes to the international protection system when circumstances change. That is the definition of democracy.

Sentiment score: 0.13

I do not know if people do not hear, do not understand or refuse to recognise what has been said. I would argue that Sinn Féin is probably the only party represented in this House that has accepted the will of the people in every referendum. The parties of Government did not accept the will of the people in respect of the first Nice and Lisbon treaty referendums and held a second vote in each case. Sinn Féin campaigned in those referendums and was on the losing side. We accepted the will of the Irish people. That does not mean that we forget the basis on which those referendums were won and how that applies to the amendments I am putting forward. Categoric assurances were provided to the Irish people in terms of the sovereignty that would be handed over. The Constitution provides that the State can cede sovereignty to the European Union, but that happens when it is in our interest to do so and the logic is that we need to do it on the basis that we have to collaborate with others. Of course we accept that there are some issues which are so big that we can only have a meaningful impact in terms of addressing them if we work on a pan-European and wider multilateral basis, where possible. Nobody will champion the UN, for example, more than our party. For all its flaws, it is the best hope humanity has. In respect of the European Union, we have to deal with things on a case-by-case basis and analyse the detail and logic behind any decision because that is what the Irish people mandated. That was the basis of Protocol 21 in the Lisbon treaty and why it was so important. That it is why it is so disappointing that the Government is simply abandoning Protocol 21 and the logic by which it which was put in place. It is being disingenuous in that regard. The Minister of State spoke about being honest and suggested we are an anti-EU party. That is a trope that has been thrown out for the past ten or 15 years. Anybody who analyses my record in the European Parliament and that of other Sinn Féin MEPs will know that we support European measures when they are in Ireland's best interests and oppose them when they are not. We will not make any apologies for that. That is what Irish representatives should do, and do so proudly, because I do not think anybody in the House advocates for a Brexit-type scenario whereby we withdraw entirely from the European Union as Britain did. Likewise, I will reject the suggestion that there is a binary choice between Brexit or EU integration on steroids. That is not the choice the State has. The choice is about how we engage with the European Union and what measures of integration we support. As I said, this should be based on our what is in our interest and what we need to collaborate on. Amendment No. 2 refers clearly to these Houses, the elected representatives of the people who make decisions in respect of migration policy. Amendment No. 3 states that the Government would provide a report to the Houses. It is interesting to note that the Minister mentioned the forerunners to the EU asylum and migration pact. He is correct. We signed up to a number of directives and regulations, but we did not sign up to all of them. The Minister of State has never answered the question on the disadvantage we faced by not signing up to the precursors to the directives and regulations that Sinn Féin opposed on this occasion. At an EU-wide level, we signed up to the forerunner for information sharing, Eurodac, and the forerunner of rights to reply, the Dublin regulations the Minister of State mentioned. We have never signed up to an EU-wide system in respect of the processing of applications, standards and conditions because of the common travel area. The Government parties at the time wanted to say that they were doing something on migration and signed us up lock, stock and barrel with no consideration given to other issues. A political propaganda judgment was made, as opposed to a considered political decision in respect of what was in Ireland's best interests. I accept the points made by Deputy O'Gorman. If people were really serious about dealing with migration, in particular forced migration for those seeking international protection, they would want a multilateral framework which deals with the causes. They would want to end conflicts and deal with climate change and gross economic inequalities internationally. It is again ironic that some of those who are most vociferous in terms of articulating an anti-migrant position are the same people who would be most resistant and hostile to measures aimed at ending conflict and dealing with climate change or addressing economic inequalities. That is different. Dealing on a multilateral basis with all of those issues is crucially important and Sinn Féin will support measures in that respect. That is different to tying people's hands behind their back. I am deeply disappointed. The Minister of State gave me a little bit of false hope in how he presented his reply because I thought he was going to accept our amendment on the common travel area. That was naïveté on my part because I thought for a moment that we would have a constructive engagement. Let us be very clear what we are asking the Government to do. The amendment simply asks the Government to prepare and publish an assessment on the potential and actual impacts of the common travel area arising from this Act, and the mitigating measures to address those areas at regular intervals, and not exceeding three years. It is not a burdensome task. It is not one of these cases where we call on the Department to produce a report and as soon as it is finished producing one report, it is working on another one. It is simply stating that the Houses will be informed as to how this is impacting and that is really important. Could the Minister of State outline precisely what proportion of applicants seeking international protection are coming from the common travel area? I can cite five different figures given by different Ministers. The truth is the Government does not know. It does not know - and we will be dealing with this in a later amendment - because it does not compile statistics and analyses as to where people are actually coming from in terms of international protection. We know who applies at ports and airports and it is assumed by the Government that everybody else who has not applied for international protection at the ports and airports has come across the Border. It has no way of knowing that. It does not know how many within our IPAS system came here for other reasons - in some cases legitimate reasons such as on tourist, employment or student visas despite international evidence suggesting a proportion of IPAS applicants came for those reasons. It is mind-boggling that the Government does not gather that statistical analysis but then it is completely disingenuous to use its failure to gather that statistical information to state that a certain number is coming from across the Border. I accept that a large proportion probably does come from the common travel area. Therefore, it is inexcusable that the Government has no mention of the common travel area in this legislation dealing with international protection. We say that a certain proportion - more than 80%, according to most Government Ministers - are coming from the common travel area and there is no reference to it whatsoever in a Bill that is 230 pages long. As regards the one amendment that actually accounts for the common travel area, the Government has indicated it will not accept it. Likewise, the Minister mentioned he has had many engagements with his British counterparts in respect of the common travel area and international protection. Before Members vote on this amendment, it is important that the Minister of State gives a report on what has actually been achieved. What concrete measures have been achieved, particularly in respect of the need for a bilateral arrangement with the British Government? This is the worst of every world because we are dealing in the first instance with a divided island and two separate States. Not only is the Northern State outside of the common travel area, migration matters are not devolved matters. Even if the Assembly, the elected institution of the Six Counties, wanted to make moves or collaborate with the Government here, it cannot do it. It cannot take any measures whatsoever. We are dependent on decisions being made at Westminster with all of the flux and the turmoil going on there, and we know those decisions have big impacts. How do we know those decisions have big impacts? We know because some of the amendments which have been brought forward by the Government to this Bill were done so directly as a result of decisions that were made in Westminster and the so-called efforts to avoid the pull factors which have been outlined. The decisions made in Westminster are going to have implications but we do not know how the Government is going to respond to them in the future. It is really important that the Minister of State provides the Houses with that assurance. If he cannot, I do not know how we can proceed. The Government is saying that 80% plus of people claiming international protection are coming from the common travel area, yet our entire international protection system is going to be based on an EU framework that takes no account of the system whatsoever. This is not just me saying this. We asked the Minister of State's Department during pre-legislative scrutiny about the analysis carried out in respect of the common travel area and how either the pact or this legislation would impact on it and it could not answer because it did not have that information. That is a reckless approach when we are considering legislation as important as this.

Sentiment score: 0.13

The Minister of State says there is ongoing co-operation that is official, political, and operational. For all of that co-operation and official, political, and operational collaboration, what is the current percentage of those in our international protection system who came through the common travel area? What measures have been taken? In terms of the official, political, and operational collaboration, how much has it reduced the numbers? What are the outcomes of that co-operation? Which particular measures enacted as a result of that official, political, and operational collaboration have led to reductions, if any, that have taken place? I hope the Minister of State can answer those questions because if he cannot and if he does not have those figures to hand, it only stresses further why amendment No. 4 should be adopted by this House.

Sentiment score: 0.03

I move amendment No. 3: In page 16, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “Annual report on sovereignty and external obligations 2. (1) The Minister shall, not later than 31 March each year, lay before the Oireachtas a report detailing: (a) the extent to which the State’s international protection system remains under domestic control; (b) obligations arising from EU or international agreements during the preceding year; and (c) steps taken to ensure that Irish sovereignty and democratic oversight are maintained. (2) The report shall be referred to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice for consideration.”.

Sentiment score: 0.20

I move amendment No. 4: In page 16, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following: “Assessment of Common Travel Area impacts 2. (1) The Government shall prepare and publish an assessment of the potential and actual impacts on the Common Travel Area arising from the operation of this Act. (2) An assessment under subsection (1) shall include— (a) analysis of any implications for the movement of persons between the State and Great Britain, (b) consideration of the effect of international protection procedures on CTA integrity and cooperation, (c) evaluation of any risks of displacement or diversion effects within the CTA, and (d) measures proposed to mitigate identified impacts. (3) The Government shall consult with relevant Departments, agencies, and stakeholders, including those with responsibility for immigration control, border management, and CTA coordination. (4) An assessment prepared under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas not later than 12 months after the commencement of this section, and thereafter at intervals not exceeding three years.”.

Sentiment score: 0.10

On point of clarification, is the correct placement of the wording of the amendment between lines 34 and 35 on page 16?

Sentiment score: 0.00

It seems to be out of kilter.

Sentiment score: 0.00

It will be the first definition in terms of interpretation.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I understand and I thank the Minister. This goes back to a point I made earlier. I have no objection to the amendment in itself but I ask the Minister for a little bit more clarification on the rationale as to why it is required and why it was not in the original Bill. What are the aspects of the Bill in which the term "absconding" is used and for which this definition is needed? Will the Minister provide a little bit of clarification on these points?

Sentiment score: -0.02

Everyone will accept that if we are going to have "absconding" in legislation, then we need to have a definition for it. On the point the Minister has raised, it would not matter if any political party wanted to have checks along the Border. As Theresa May and Boris Johnson found out, it is just not physically possible to do so with 300 Border crossings. Certainly, it would not be practical. That is why we have said very clearly that we need to advance towards Irish unity and deal with these issues on an all-Ireland basis. The Minister was not here for the previous debate. Does he accept the best way of dealing with all of these issues and to provide clarification and certainty to people across the island of Ireland would be to have a bilateral arrangement in place with his British counterpart? It would be helpful if he would comment on that.

Sentiment score: 0.35

We have consistently asked that the Minister would prioritise the issue of a bilateral arrangement. Without going through all the critiques of how he has approached the Bill and the huge amount of resources that are being put into bringing us into a EU framework when, by the Minister's admission and according to the statements of a significant number of Ministers, a large proportion of people who seek international protection-----

Sentiment score: 0.26

It is in respect of the definition of "absconding". Ministers have stated repeatedly the figure is in excess of 80%. Figures of 80%, 85%, 90% and 90%-plus have been cited by different Ministers who have said the people seeking international protection are coming via the common travel area. I asked the previous Minister. Maybe this Minister can answer. What is the proportion? I suspect he does not know and therefore I suggest he stop bandying around figures. However, most people would accept a majority of those seeking international protection are coming through the common travel area. Therefore, as I have repeatedly said, I believe the Minister's priority should be pursuing a bilateral arrangement rather than actually moving to-----

Sentiment score: 0.04

-----the inaction of the EU migration and asylum pact. That point has been repeatedly missed by Government.

Sentiment score: -0.27

I do not know why the Minister is being entirely disingenuous. He knows what Sinn Féin's position is. We want to get rid of the Border in our country. We want a unitary state and we have repeatedly said for those who want to manage the migration system, that is the single biggest step we could take to have the capacity of being able to do that. In terms of a bilateral arrangement with Britain, it means we would have the ability on the island of Ireland to actually be able to ensure we know who is coming in and who is moving out of our country at any given time. Yes, there is a fundamental problem in that our island is partitioned and part of our country operates within an EU framework and part does not. One of the fundamental problems we have with the approach of the Minister and Government on the EU asylum and migration pact is that they are enforcing and enacting a Bill that takes no cognisance of that. There is no reference to the common travel area in the Bill. The Minister has just rejected an amendment that would actually put an onus on Government to provide a detailed report on the implications and the mitigation measures put in place in respect of the common travel area. Let us have an honest debate and let us not try to put words in people's mouths. We need to be clear that a lot of the questions that people have about international protection cannot be answered by the Minister precisely because we are a divided country and we do not have any mechanism in place to have an arrangement with the British Government to address those issues, being mindful of the point I made earlier. It is bad enough we have two states on this island but the fact the northern state has no competency whatsoever in respect of migration makes it even more complicated. The only mechanism we have to address these issues is through bilateral arrangements with the British Government.

Sentiment score: 0.06

I move amendment No. 7: In page 20, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “ “legal counselling” means oral or written legal advice from a practising solicitor or barrister, or a person employed by the Legal Aid Board who is authorised to provide legal advice or representation;”. I am surprised the amendment was necessary. I know there are other amendments. I am not sure if or why this was not grouped because throughout the PLS process-----

Sentiment score: 0.06

No, I know. I am surprised it is not because there are other proposals for definitions. The Minister would have read the pre-legislative scrutiny report by the committee and throughout that process, it was repeatedly flagged that the term "legal counselling" appears several times in the legislation but there is insufficient definition. Many of those who gave expert testimony to the committee raised the fear of risks of creating uncertainty as to what level of legal assistance international protection applicants would actually receive. In this amendment, we purposely tried to provide a clearly understood definition of what "legal counselling" would mean. It means any "oral or written legal advice from a practising solicitor or barrister, or a person employed by the Legal Aid Board who is authorised to provide legal advice or representation". The reason the definition was sought and why so many raised it is because, as it stands, there is an assurance that people seeking international protection would be entitled to legal counselling. However, members of the legal profession have said they do not know what that means. "Legal counselling" could mean that somebody goes on ChatGPT, it could mean that they are talking to a call centre or it could mean that they are handed a leaflet that pertains to legal counselling. For the purpose of this process, it is crucially important because we want to have a robust system of international protection that works. We also want to ensure the State lives up to its responsibilities under international law. That means that if somebody comes into this State seeking international protection, they must get a fair hearing. In order to get a fair hearing within the very narrow timeframe that the Bill sets - I think most people support that timeframe - they need to have access in some cases to legal advice or support. In my view, it is imperative that there is a definition. If the Minister is not supporting this amendment, I would like clarification on whether he plans to bring forward a further amendment in terms of providing a definition. If the Minister is not supporting this amendment, it would be crucially important that he sets out to the House what part of the amendment he is not supporting because, as I have said, this amendment is technical in nature. It seeks to set a definition for "legal counselling" that will appear in the Bill. Without it, the Bill is deficient. Therefore, it would be left up to some legal professional, probably a judge, to make a determination on what precisely "legal counselling" is. I suggest it is the role of this House to set that definition in place.

Sentiment score: 0.18

The Minister has indicated that he is going to bring forward a definition of "legal counselling", but I have to say I have no sense from what he has said of what that definition will mean. He mentioned amendment No. 8 and the language in the directive. If it was as simple as taking the definition in its entirety, I presume it would be in place by now. To be clear, the amendment before us, amendment No. 7, does not limit legal counselling to legal advice from a practising solicitor. It also refers to "a person employed by the Legal Aid Board who is authorised to provide legal advice or representation". The Minister might inform the House of other avenues or other places where legal advice, legal support or counselling could be provided, but he has to tell us where that is. When you leave the front gates of Leinster House, the chances are that someone is going to give you legal advice in some regard. I know people who have lost their homes because they took legal advice from the wrong fella sitting at the bar who told them not to recognise the court, to cite common law from the 1500s, or whatever the case may be. There is a difference between getting legal advice and getting sound, solid legal advice. Here is the other point. The Minister mentioned the different stages. Of course, there might be different responsibilities on him depending on those stages. I remind him of something that is clearly shown by the figures for processing times that we outlined earlier. He is very quick to tell everybody that the median processing time at first instance has been reduced by two months, but not so quick to tell people that the IPAT appeals time is taking two and a half months extra than the year before. I presume, first of all, that the IPAT process is more expensive to the State. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us an indication of what proportion of those who appealed in 2025 - I have not got the figures yet - were successful at IPAT stage. For those who are ultimately successful, it would be better if they were successful at first stage. You want to get to a point with any system that has an appeals mechanism where a small minority of cases are appealed because there is trust in the system itself. The more robust the first-instance process is and the more it is upheld at appeal stage, the better. It is also more likely to happen if people are well informed on how they move forward. I want clarification before I decide whether to press this amendment. The Minister said he is bringing forward another amendment. What is that amendment going to say? I am not looking for it word for word, but what is the context of it going to be? As members of the justice committee, I do not think we would be doing our job if we did not insist on the inclusion of a definition of "legal counselling". I agree with Deputy Kelly that "legal counselling" means nothing to people who know a lot more about law and legal matters than I do. I have to trust their judgment. When representative organisations of legal practitioners are coming before the Oireachtas justice committee to say they do not know what "legal counselling" means, it is a big problem. When that is the case, you either get rid of the term "legal counselling" or you put in a definition that is easily understood to everybody. I do not believe we would be doing our job as members of the justice committee if we were to disregard what we were told during the pre-legislative scrutiny on the general scheme of the Bill. We were told by organisations representing the interests of those seeking international protection, by people in the legal profession and by experts on areas of migration who just want to ensure we have a legislative framework that actually works that this is a big problem. We need to fix it. The Minister said he will bring forward a definition but we need clarity before we leave this amendment here today.

Sentiment score: 0.21

Will the Minister repeat that last piece?

Sentiment score: 0.00

It is actually farcical when you think about it. The Minister has dismissed all our criticisms about the rushed nature of this, the lack of scrutiny of this legislation and the absolute fallacy of signing up to an EU asylum migration pact. Regardless of the merits of signing up, the whole purpose of Protocol 21 is actually a benefit Ireland had whereby we can sign up and opt in at any stage. If we decide not to opt in, we could opt in at a later stage, but no. Because Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael had to be shown to be doing something on migration, it was a case of signing ourselves up and tying ourselves into a deadline of June 2026. Despite the fact that this legislation has been brought forward by the Department of justice with a senior Minister who, if I may say so, is an eminent barrister, they cannot give us a definition of legal counselling, not at pre-legislative scrutiny, not on Second Stage of the legislation, not on Committee Stage, and now the Minister is saying it will not even be on Report Stage. It will not be defined until it gets to the Seanad. Will it be on Committee Stage? We know where the Seanad amendments come and what happens with them. They are brought in here for an hour's debate and all the rest of it. This is despite the fact that we have been told this. I am not a legal expert and I have never pretended to be but I am the Chair of the Oireachtas justice committee. Virtually every single person who appeared before us told us that one of the big issues they have with this legislation is that the term "legal counselling" is not defined. The Minister corrected himself at the very last moment in acknowledging that my amendment indicates "from a practising solicitor or barrister" but very clearly states "or a person employed by the Legal Aid Board who is authorised to provide legal advice or representation”. I did that knowing of the pressures of the Legal Aid Board, which the Minister has also acknowledged. I do not know if he has had time to look back or get a report on the hearing yesterday, which some of his officials attended. Other Members who are present were also there and they might also attest to this. I am really concerned about the future of civil legal aid in this State. I have raised concerns previously in the context of domestic violence victims and their ability to access the courts and access justice, and to secure barring orders. There is the potential that this situation could get even worse. I believe that a report was provided to the Minister about this last year. It was published last summer. We are ten months on, I think, from its publication and nothing has happened. The Minister has a minority and a majority report. Either would be better than the situation we are in here. The provision is there. Considering the timeframe and the lack of clarity the Minister has provided, it is only fair that the Dáil set this out clearly at this point. Adopt this amendment now and amend it later so that at least we will be in a better position than we are currently, when the term "legal counselling" is not defined at all in the legislation. We would be better off making this amendment. I would be only too willing to accept a further amendment, if it provided the clarity and assurance required.

Sentiment score: 0.16

Sinn Féin will be supporting amendment No. 10. I just want to speak to amendments Nos. 17, 20, 134, 154, 192 and 206, which are in my name and which set out very clearly in a number of different provisions within the Bill that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in the carrying out of any procedures. This is really important for a number of reasons. Children are clearly very vulnerable in many aspects. There is a whole raft of areas of concern about how children are treated in the international protection system, particularly when we are talking about very young children. They do not decide to arrive in Ireland or anywhere else and make an international protection application. If they are with their parents or guardian, that decision has been made on their behalf by their parent or guardian. Whatever about the merits of the case or whatever else, it is academic. It does not matter. Their interests need to be protected. We also know that for what I would consider to be too large a number of unaccompanied minors who come into the State, in many respects, there is a hidden hand behind their arrival in Ireland. Some of it is quite nefarious and some of it is very dangerous in terms of the safety of the children. There are bad actors - the terms "people smugglers" or "human traffickers" could be applied to them. Therefore, it is crucially important that this State has very robust procedures, absolutely, but also that it ensures the welfare of the child does not come into question. I agree with everything that has been said that when we talk about any core principle, we also need to define it. That is why I welcome the amendment from Deputies Gannon and Kelly that set out a definition. Again, I would ask the Minister whether he is accepting that definition. I think the definition is 100% fine. If he is not accepting the definition, is he going to bring forward another definition or is there going to be a definition for rights of the child? In respect of amendments Nos. 17, 20, 134, 154, 192 and 206, which are in different parts of the legislation and refer to very specific roles regarding the best interests of the child, that principle is set in as an important general instruction to those who will be charged with manning the international protection system. It is important. The Irish people want a system that works. They want a system where decisions are made quickly but where they are the right decisions, so that if people have an entitlement to be here, they receive that entitlement and they are supported to become fully fledged members of our communities, and if they do not have an entitlement to be here, that decision is made quickly. In the meantime, when that decision is being made, I believe the vast majority of Irish people want people to be treated decently. They want people to be treated with the same responsibilities and the same rights and benefits we would expect Irish people to receive elsewhere. They are just fundamental principles. There is a particular empathy with young people who are emigrants. I was born as an emigrant. It was not a million miles away - across the water - but the experience of an immigrant child is very peculiar because growing up is hard to do and especially for older children and teenagers. It can be a very traumatic experience, and we need to be cognisant of that because regardless of whether somebody is entitled to ultimately to be in Ireland, we want their experience to be a positive one from the start. If they are not entitled to be in Ireland and they go elsewhere in the world, we still want their experience of dealing with the Irish system to have been fair and humane. I commend this amendment. I will press each of the amendments. I am hoping that the Minister will give an indication that he will accept some, if not all, of those amendments, which, as I said, are just putting the principle of the best interests of the child in various sections. However, I do think it would be important that the House vote on at least one of those to send out a very clear message that they are the guiding principles by which we judge ourselves.

Sentiment score: 0.24

Can I get clarification as to why amendment No. 11 was ruled out of order?

Sentiment score: -0.15

The Ceann Comhairle mentioned the rationale for amendment No. 11 being ruled out of order. It would be appropriate if the Minister of State could give an indication as to how exactly these Houses are to have any faith whatsoever that Tusla will be in a position to carry out the obligations that are placed on it as a result of the measures in the Bill. I take it from the Ceann Comhairle's guidance that the part of the amendment that precluded it from being taken is subsection (3) which indicates that the Act cannot commence until the report that is sought in the earlier subsections is furnished. In that regard, I will try to have a better-worded amendment on Report Stage. Seriously, how can the Minister of State enact this, which will place additional issues and pressures on Tusla, without ensuring that it has the staffing, the resources and the operational capacity to meet what is expected to be very expanded statutory duties that will involve unaccompanied minors, issues around delays, inconsistent care and the system strain? The pre-legislative scrutiny process, when we were dealing with the general scheme, heard from numerous witnesses at the committee that there are very serious concerns around the ability of Tusla to do the jobs it already has never mind the work that we have here. The legislation that is being brought forward now requires Tusla to take on greater responsibilities for assessing, for supporting and accommodating unaccompanied minors, for co-ordinating child protection interventions and for ensuring welfare safeguards during any procedures involving children. In practice, that will mean Tusla's workload for reception, oversight, care and planning for vulnerable young applicants is going to be expanded. The burden of responsibility on Tusla is going to be much greater. If we look at the here and now, Tusla is under-resourced and overstretched as it is. It is unable to meet its statutory duties for vulnerable children, including unaccompanied minors in the international protection system. The general scheme debate at pre-legislative scrutiny stage dealt comprehensively with the number of young people going missing from Tusla care, the majority of them having been unaccompanied minors in the international protection system. The number is astounding, but what is more astounding is the lack of public focus on the issue. Unless we have major investment and staffing increases and shake up Tusla, we cannot have any confidence whatsoever. That is why we have brought forward amendment No. 11, which would have called on the Minister prior to the commencement of the Act to lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the capacity of the Child and Family Agency to discharge its statutory function. That report would include an assessment of the staffing levels, the operational capacity, the organisational structures of the Child and Family Agency insofar as they related to the performance of its functions under the Act, an assessment of the financial and other resources available to the agency for the purpose of fulfilling those functions, and confirmation that the agency was in a position to comply with its statutory obligations under the Act upon its commencement. The amendment is not there, but can the Minister of State give an assurance that Tusla is going to have the capacity to deal with the additional responsibilities the Government is forcing through in this rushed legislation? Can he give an assurance that for the issue of care of unaccompanied minors, the structures and resources will be in place, that we will not have children in the international protection system who are in accommodation provided by private, for-profit operators with sometimes very dubious track records, and that we will have the personnel and staff in place within Tusla to provide care? If the Minister of State can give that assurance, most Members of the House will be quite surprised. The experience with Tusla in terms of every other care it has responsibility for is that it is not in a position to do that across the board. I do not know how, therefore, we can in any way be confident that passing legislation that increases the administrative workload and operational responsibilities on Tusla is going to happen. Before we adopt section 3, we need to have assurances that that is in place. Otherwise, I do not know how we can adopt section 3, which allows for the Minister by regulations to provide for any matter referred to in this Bill and outlines the different regulations that may be made under this Bill. We are going to be entrusting Tusla, an organisation that does not have the best track record in caring for children, with more responsibilities. It has told us, or at least the evidence before the committee suggests, that there are serious questions as to the ability of that organisation. Of course, the whole issue of international protection and Tusla in the public mind has been mixed up with the absolutely terrible story of a young girl going missing who was subsequently allegedly attacked at the Citywest centre, and how Tusla dealt with the situation. That was a young girl who went missing, a 12-year-old girl. Nobody knew about it, and then Tusla issued what was, quite frankly, a victim-blaming statement that talked about a 12-year-old child's behavioural issues. This is the organisation we are giving more responsibility to. I really hope the Minister of State can give us some assurance that the principles of amendment No. 11, notwithstanding the fact it has been ruled out of order at this stage, will actually be adhered to, and that he will ensure that he as Minister of State and the senior Minister and the Department are absolutely confident that Tusla can do what is asked of it before we enshrine in law its capacity to do all that.

Sentiment score: 0.15

May I follow up on that? Will the Minister of State put detail on that? How many new staff are going to be allocated to Tusla in order to fulfil the responsibilities being assigned to it? How many staffing posts are vacant within Tusla and how is the gap actually going to be filled? When the Minister of State talks about-----

Sentiment score: 0.00

I am talking to the section.

Sentiment score: 0.00

No, but the Minister of State is bringing forward legislation that is putting additional responsibilities onto another organisation. He cannot just wash his hands of it-----

Sentiment score: -0.08

-----and say it is another Department. It is his Department.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I am asking the Minister of State how he is going to do that.

Sentiment score: 0.00

How many extra staff are going to be provided, how much extra funding is going to be provided and when is that going to be funded? Will the Minister of State ensure all those measures are put in place before he assigns these additional responsibilities to a State agency that has not been able to fulfil the responsibilities it already has?

Sentiment score: 0.19

I ask the Minister of State for clarification. Section 4 sets out how official documents can be served. It allows for delivery in person, by post or electronically. It defines valid email and phone contact points, explains the use of a secure online portal and states when a service is legally deemed completed. Is the Minister of State satisfied the section does not potentially create a problem whereby documents might be deemed served even though an applicant may not have received them? Does he feel amendments might be required to make it abundantly clear that where a document is deemed served on an applicant, the applicant has actually received it?

Sentiment score: 0.22

I have a couple of technical questions. Section 5 removes several parts of the 2015 Act, repealing Part 2, Part 8 and specific sections. It is effectively clearing out older procedures to make way for the new system. Are there old procedures that are not included in the new Act? If so, can some detail be provided on that? Part 2 sets out the framework for making international protection applications, including preliminary interviews and how claims are lodged. If he has that information, will the Minister of State detail what the change will look like in the application process, the interview process and the lodging of claims? If this Act comes into place in the summer, what will be the difference between September and now? The previous Act designated Britain a safe third country - at least that is my understanding - and the current Bill does not. Instead, it creates a case-by-case safe third country test that requires the Minister to assess whether a country meets specific standards. Because Britain is not part of the EU framework any more, am I right in saying a new assessment would have to be carried out? Will the Minister of State clarify whether Britain will be deemed, post the enactment of this legislation, a safe third country?

Sentiment score: 0.19

This is again dealing with the concept of a safe third country. I want to go back to the situation with Britain as a result of the amendment of the 2015 Act. As the Minister of State will know, following Brexit, Ireland could no longer use the EU Dublin III regulation to return international protection applicants to Britain, but for a while Britain remained a de facto safe third country because of the 2015 Act and the regulations still listed in it. Then in 2022 the Government formally stopped treating Britain as a safe third country due, I think, to the advice of the Attorney General. That effectively ended Britain's practical status as a safe third country for Ireland even though the original designation was made in 2015. Considering the lengthy discussion we had about the common travel area and the senior Minister's charge in respect of all the good work that is being done in terms of the collaboration with the British Government, will the Minister of State clarify that after this Bill passes unless Britain is designated rapidly as a safe third country, there will be questions about how applicants can be returned to Britain? This is an important point and I raise it because the public would welcome clarification on it, but also because it may require further amendment to clarify the onus on us. As the Minister of State said, and as I have mentioned a number of times, the assertions from Government are that over four in five applicants in our IPAS system are coming via the common travel area, so this is not a moot point. It is a critical point for our ability to have a functional IPAS system that works for everyone involved.

Sentiment score: 0.37

What does the Minister of State mean by "look at"? Does he see the Oireachtas being informed about the ongoing work? It is as clear as mud at this point. I gather from his response that this is an important issue that requires clarification and potentially a response through regulation. Is it a provision in this Bill? Will this section allow this matter to be resolved and will it be resolved through Britain being designated a safe third country? Is that what is proposed?

Sentiment score: 0.19

I move amendment No. 15: In page 26, after line 30, to insert the following: “Community impact assessments prior to location of international protection accommodation 14. (1) Prior to the establishment of any new accommodation centre under this Act, the Minister shall ensure that a Community Impact Assessment is prepared and published. (2) A Community Impact Assessment shall be carried out by— (a) the relevant local authority, or (b) such other competent body as the Minister may appoint for that purpose. (3) A Community Impact Assessment shall include— (a) the projected capacity of the proposed centre, (b) an assessment of local service impacts, (c) community engagement plans, (d) proposed mitigation measures, and (e) an analysis of the Pobal Deprivation Index for the area concerned, including consideration of whether the proposal would contribute to a disproportionate concentration of accommodation centres in disadvantaged communities. (4) The body carrying out the Assessment under subsection (2) shall conduct a statutory consultation with— (a) the relevant local authority (where it is not itself the assessing body), and (b) community stakeholders. (5) A centre shall not commence operation until— (a) the consultation period has concluded, and (b) the Community Impact Assessment has been published.”. This is a critical amendment from Sinn Féin's perspective. It sets out that, prior to any new IPAS accommodation being established, the Minister would ensure that a community impact assessment was prepared and published, the impact assessment would be carried out by the relevant local authority or other such competent body as the Minister may appoint, and the community impact assessment would include information pertaining to the projected capacity of the proposed centre, an assessment of the local service impacts, community engagement plans, proposed mitigation measures and an analysis of the Pobal deprivation index for the area concerned, including consideration of whether the proposal would contribute to a disproportionate concentration of accommodation centres in disadvantaged communities. The body carrying out the assessment would carry out a statutory consultation with the relevant local authority and community stakeholders and the centre would not commence operation until that consultation period had concluded and the community impact assessment had been published. This is critical because all of the debates around migration and, specifically, IPAS have taken place in the context of this aspect of our international protection system being handled disastrously. I would say disgracefully. I say that as someone who comes from a rural county, Monaghan. As I mentioned earlier, I was born a migrant across the water. The history of Monaghan is a history of migration to places all over North America. There are countries in Latin America that are independent today because Monaghan people emigrated or, in some instances, were exiled. The Fenians attempted to capture Canada at one point, led by a Monaghan man. The history of Monaghan's migration was one of outward migration for many centuries. For the past number of decades, however, even though we are a rural county, we probably had much more immigration proportionately than many other counties. There are a number of reasons for that, and one is that we have a strong and vibrant agrifood sector. Employment permits were issued originally to people from eastern Europe and now from all over the world. County Monaghan had one of the first direct provision centres. We have had a success story in terms of people coming to our county, making it their home and making our communities more vibrant. Local communities have embraced and welcomed people. People have come to Monaghan from the Congo, Syria and elsewhere on official resettlement programmes. I was a member of the local authority when those resettlement programmes happened. This will sound alien, but I will tell Deputies about my experience. Prior to those programmes, the council was asked to appoint a number of members to sit on a preparation group. We attended meetings with health and education services, the Garda, the local authority and the Department well in advance of resettlement. We dealt with all of the contingencies and potential issues that might arise and all of the mitigation measures that needed to be in place were thrashed out and planned. Those resettlement programmes were a huge success. People who came through the scheme as kids are now adults and play a vital and very welcome role in our communities. That is how to do things right. Move forward and we see the debacle of direct provision and how it was allowed to run roughshod and become a source of profit for a small number of individuals. In the late 1990s and early 2000s and for the first time ever, Ireland became a destination for people seeking international protection or asylum. I would love to have been a fly on the wall to try to understand the mentality of the people who sat around and said they could examine international models of how best to manage this only for somebody to say that we needed to figure out a way for a few of their mates to make money out of this, because that is essentially what happened with direct provision. In this regard, I often think of a scenario where someone asked what would happen if they converted a building into a direct provision facility and the numbers dropped. I can imagine a Fianna Fáil representative saying, “Don't worry. We'll make the process so slow that once someone is accommodated in your centre, they'll be there so long you'll be guaranteed to make your return out of it.” By the mid-2010s, the direct provision system was full to the seams. Something else needed to happen at that point. Rather than learning from the mistakes that were made, those responsible decided to try to find emergency accommodation. Did they put in place a State body? No. What they did was go back to the same people again and provided them with more profits. It was decided to find intermediaries. That was the term used at the time. As a result of all this, people in the rural communities close to where I live who had already lost their post offices and Garda stations and who had no amenities other than their local hotels, woke up one morning to discover that - without any engagement with them - they were being turned into IPAS centres. If the Government were to try to create division, resentment and anger in local communities, it could not have done it any better. That system began in rural communities. It then began to be put in place in urban communities more often. The one thing all the communities involved had in common when this happened was that they were already deprived of services, amenities and investment, both public and private. More than any single action taken or any set of decisions made, that was what led to the hostility and anger we have seen across our country. There are people standing by who are ready to manipulate that anger and turn it against those in the accommodation to which I refer as opposed to turning it against those who were at fault, namely the successive Governments that allowed the system to come into place. Everybody accepts that we need change. The amendment sets out very clearly for local communities – I include in this those who have made our towns, villages and cities their home in recent years – that never again will we allow such obscenities to happen. In that context, I refer to communities losing amenities and seeing buildings being converted into IPAS accommodation centres and things being done for the motivation of profit without their being engaged with. The amendment sets out the parameters as to how that would happen. I appeal to the Ministers to accept it. If they do not, they will be sending a message to the effect that what happened before could happen again. Some of the stories I have heard are absolutely obscene. We have had countless towns which were struggling for economic regeneration and in which the last hotel was snapped up overnight with no engagement whatsoever. Of course, the elected Government representatives in these places go to ground when this happens. In many areas, it has been left to Sinn Féin representatives to try to be the bridge between communities and the Department and to get some semblance of understanding as to what was happening. In many cases, that put us in the firing line with those who were most angry. That is completely unfair. If we are going to live up to our responsibilities and recognise that mistakes were made, we have to put in place a mechanism by means of which those mistakes can be corrected. Let us make no mistake about it. The location of IPAS accommodation has been determined by one factor, that is, the availability of buildings and the willingness of their owners to allow them to be used for the purposes of providing such accommodation. Nothing else has been taken into consideration. There is no assessment of either the capacity or the needs of the communities involved, of the purposes for which such buildings are being used or of the impact their being repurposed will have. Our amendment sets out how and why we need to deal with that. When you are dealing with profit motivation, the areas most likely to be the source are those where property is cheaper. Where is property cheaper? It is cheaper in areas that considered deprived in the context of the Government’s index, namely the Pobal HP deprivation index. Many communities and community leaders have been left in impossible situations. They want to ensure that anybody who moves into their area is welcomed and treated with dignity, but they are also dealing with the absurdity of more vulnerable people being brought into communities that are already full of vulnerable people and where services are stretched to breaking point. The amendment simply seeks to ensure that there will be proper community engagement in future. That engagement should not take the form of a consultation process like that which currently operates whereby what counts for engagement is elected representatives getting a phone call or an email to tell them that a contract has been signed, brought to an end or whatever. That is not engagement. Engagement is what I described previously with regard to what was done in respect of resettlement programmes. I put that on the record because some of our amendments relating to due diligence and transparency have been ruled out of order. We have to get to the point where people are told the facts in respect of contracts that are being signed. Last year, €1.2 billion was spent on IPAS accommodation. That is more than €3 million each day. I really hope the Minister of State will indicate that the Government is going to accept amendment No. 15. There is nothing in it that would interfere with any other aspect of the International Protection Bill. Nothing in the amendment will prevent the Minister from doing anything in terms of processing or any of the other mechanisms. All it says is that before a new IPAS centre is opened, a community assessment should be carried out. We are saying to communities all over the country that they are going to be part of what happens in the same way they are when virtually anything else is being built and when they can have their say through the planning process. We are also saying that if something is being developed by someone with a bit of cop-on, they should engage with the local community and get the goodwill of its members. I am very proud of this amendment. I really hope the Government will indicate that there has been a sea change in the context of how we deal with this issue and that it is going to accept the amendment.

Sentiment score: 0.06

Well said.

Sentiment score: 0.27