This is an incredibly serious piece of legislation. It is a frontal assault on human rights. It is a Bill for the detention of children. It is a Bill which undermines the right to legal representation. It is a Bill which attempts to effectively telescope the process of asylum in order to deny asylum seekers their rights. I do not think that such an assault on human rights will stay with one group, in that the implementation of this denial of human rights for asylum seekers, as part of a scape-goating strategy, will not then have an impact on other groups in society. This is a very important Bill which has widespread ramifications for everybody in this country in reality, if not directly but indirectly in terms of where we go from here once you normalise the idea of detaining children and once you normalise the idea of diminishing the right to legal representation. It is very troubling that such a serious move will be done not just without proper parliamentary scrutiny but in conscious disregard of proper parliamentary scrutiny. I am interested in the Minister's explanation as to why this is not happening in a normal committee. I am not on the committee but the committee is absolutely the place to have the kind of in-depth discussion that is needed on all of these amendments that we had such rushed deadlines to submit. It is a bit contradictory because the Minister is saying he is happy to sit for eight hours today and sit for eight hours next week as well but unless the Minister will introduce a guillotine, we could be doing this at the committee. I have heard from the Cathaoirleach of the committee that it was willing to sit at short notice and for as long as necessary. Why not have the proper parliamentary process? Why not go through Committee Stage in committee and afterwards do Report Stage of the Bill? At the very least as a parliament, it is what should be incumbent on us. It certainly should be incumbent on the Government when making such a serious move to actually go through the processes as they are set out as opposed to try to skip them or partially avoid them in the way that is happening here.

Sentiment score: -0.09

The Minister's response is quite revealing. We are saying this is a Bill for the detention of children. He is saying not to worry, he will recognise the rights of children and there is nothing to be worried about. Then we have amendments before us that propose the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in the carrying out of this procedure in terms of asylum, and we have amendments that propose this Part will be interpreted in line with the guarantees for minors set out in Article 23, but the Minister is here to tell us he cannot accept them. The most substantive reason he gave for not being able to accept them is that he says the provision is already there. The Minister knows it is not already there because he has just read it out. It is there in a different Part. He asserted two reasons he cannot do it. One is because it is already a legal obligation so what is the point in doing it and the other is that it is already there in a different Part. He read it out himself. It is in the Part relating to Eurodac and screening. The Bill states explicitly that the best interests of the child should be a primary consideration in the carrying out of the procedures under that Part. We are asking him to state it in relation to the asylum process and he is not going to accept it.

Sentiment score: 0.09

The Minister is not going to accept it today on Committee Stage. As part of the Minister's consideration, I ask him to consider that he cannot logically say that we do not need it because it is already binding on us because of Article 23 itself, and then on the other hand say it is here in relation to this particular part. The fact that it is there in relation to the Eurodac regulation and screening illustrates that it is there. Someone decided there is a need for it to be there in order for that to apply. Yet, as it stands, when we finish Committee Stage it is not going to be there in the part that relates to asylum procedures. Does Deputy O'Callaghan really want to be the Minister who says that the best interests of the child and guarantees for minors are not going to be referenced in terms of how we are carrying out asylum procedures? That is fine, the Minister will vote against it today and vote it down. However, I would say the argumentation does not hold water. That it is referenced elsewhere suggests that someone somewhere recognised the need to reference it, and it needs to be referenced in relation to this part as well.

Sentiment score: 0.16