I share many of the concerns raised by colleagues in terms of the process being adopted here and the fact that we are treating some really valuable amendments via a committee of the whole Dáil rather than at the justice committee. I am not sure what went on and why it is not going to the justice committee. From my own experience, allowing committees to delve into amendments and tease out the various consequences of both the initial draft and what is being proposed by Deputies is actually useful. It will often reveal flaws in existing drafts and Report Stage gives Ministers and Departments the opportunities to make those important clarifications and changes so you are not dragged back in six months' or a year's time with an amending piece of legislation. Notwithstanding that, we are here and we have eight hours today. I welcome the fact there is no guillotine today but, as other Deputies have referenced, I have a concern that one may come about next week and it will be opposed. There is a lot of merit to amendment No. 1 that Deputy Carthy brought forward. This Bill represents the biggest change in our migration system in decades. It is a change that is necessary but it is not just a case of changing the legislation. We know for this new law to be implemented, we need to change processes and massively increase resources within the system. Having that degree of confidence that the processes and resources are being changed and increased at the same time that the legislation is being changed would be really valuable. It would even be valuable for the Government so it could make the case we are not just changing the law, we are actually upscaling our State's ability to process international protection first instance applications and appeals at speed so people can have more confidence in this system. The report that would have flowed from the amendment Deputy Carthy brought forward would actually have had real benefit and merit. Even now, in terms of bringing this forward, there may be an opportunity later on for the Minister to consider that and how he can convey that this is not just a legal change but it is a resourcing change as well and is something that ensures this Bill can be operationalised once it is passed.

Sentiment score: 0.36

There are three amendments to this section and I think there is an amendment to section 4 regarding the common travel area. Our unique border situation with Northern Ireland poses a particular challenge to how we manage migration and asylum here. I think everyone in the Government and the Opposition share the goal of maintaining an open border there. Understanding how the specific flows between Ireland and the UK work would be useful, as this amendment proposes. I am less convinced by the argument for amendments Nos. 2 and 3. We have seen over decades how our planet has become more and more interconnected. We can put provisions into our law that say things like the State’s international protection system remains under domestic control, which is what amendment No. 3 says, but we also have to be very honest that migration in Ireland is fundamentally linked to events that are outside our control. Droughts in sub-Saharan Africa, a crackdown by the regime in Iran, a civil war in a Middle Eastern country or an economic downturn in a former Soviet state are ultimately the events around the world that impact on the flows of migration to Ireland and Europe. Our political relationship with the UK is another key element that impacts flows of migration here. In the run-up to the British general election in May 2024 we saw how the Tory Party, seeing it was about to lose power, weaponised the issue of migration here and the pressures we were experiencing with migration here to try to fend off the challenge of Reform. The party basically withdrew meaningful co-operation on these issues with our Government at that time. When a new government came in and bilateral relationships were restored we saw how proper policies could be implemented. That ability to engage with other countries in an upfront and structured way is hugely important to how we manage migration. That international co-operation is fundamental to being able to manage the flows of people seeking asylum. We have a very clear example of a country that thrust sovereignty to the very front of its argument regarding migration and we saw that in the UK during the Brexit debate. We have seen how that has absolutely failed and how the UK’s so-called embrace of sovereignty by leaving the European Union has failed to deal with migration, which was probably the central issue in Brexit. The levels of migration the UK has experienced have been even greater, in many instances, since it left the European Union but its ability to deal with the day-to-day problems such as issues with small boats has lessened because it does not have that structured engagement with the European Union. As such, it is important when we are having this discussion to understand that while this Dáil will make decisions about the processes and the legal format of international protection here, we cannot just throw sovereignty over legislation and feel it deals with the issue because fundamentally Ireland and so many other countries in the world are at the mercy of international events when it comes to migration. We have to have systems in place that deal with the consequences of those international events.

Sentiment score: 0.14

I am speaking in favour of this amendment. I am not sure why Deputy Gannon's amendment was ruled out but this one was not. The comprehensiveness of the definition that Deputy Gannon was seeking to provide was really useful. Nevertheless, this is a good definition as well. Throughout this debate there has been real concern about the new concept of "legal counselling" that the Bill appears to be introducing. It is not properly defined. At present, particularly under the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995, there are various rights in terms of legal advice and legal assistance. We are bringing in a new theme or concept here. A new concept such as this should be clearly defined in law, particularly recognising that the decision on the granting of asylum status is probably one of the most fundamental legal decisions about people seeking status that they will experience in their lives. This is a decision and a process that they are engaging in, often in a language that is not their first language, often after a traumatic journey across long distances and often after experiencing huge trauma within the country that they are fleeing. I am really concerned about the lack of clarity on the exact entitlements to legal support they can receive here. It is a source of concern among many NGOs. I do not see why this matter could not be resolved. Can we not just decide? Is it what we understand as legal advice under existing legislation? If it is something new, if it is of a higher category or if it is of a lower category, could the Minister at least give us a clear definition somewhere in the legislation? That is not too much to ask.

Sentiment score: 0.17